![]() |
|
Monday, April 2, 2007
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Two steps forward, one step back on trade
The two steps forward are that the United States and South Korea signed a free trade deal just before the deadline of having it approved under President Bush's Trade Promotion Authority. The New York Times' Choe Sang Hun explains: United States and South Korean negotiators struck the world’s largest bilateral free-trade agreement today, giving the United States a badly needed lift to its foreign trade policy at home and South Korea a chance to reinvigorate its export economy.The step back comes from the Bush administration's weekend decision to slap tariffs on Chinese paper. Steven Weisman explains in the NYT: The Bush administration, in a major escalation of trade pressure on China, said Friday that it would reverse more than 20 years of American policy and impose potentially steep tariffs on Chinese manufactured goods on the ground that China is illegally subsidizing some of its exports.[U.S. trade with China far exceeds trade with South Korea. Why is this only a step back compared to KORUS?--ed.] Two reasons. First, much as I despite countervailing duties, this policy shift seems to make sense within the context of what those duties are supposed to accomplish. As Weisman explains: American law allows the United States to impose what are called antidumping duties when imports are sold in the United States at prices below what it costs to produce them.Second, I'm willing to bet that this case will end the same way the steel case ended. If the complainants are basing their argument on China's currency valuation, then the WTO ain't going to uphold this action. In which case, three years from now, we know how this wll end -- unless it gets settled in the bilateral Strategic Economic Dialogue between now and then. UPDATE: they're not basing it on the currency valuation. Never mind. Meanwhile, Trade Diversion is skeptical of Commerce's ability to assess the magnitude of the direct subsidy. Comments: Dan, Thanks for following up on these stories. I have two questions/comments: On CORUS, I was wondering how likely it is to go though smooth ratification in Congress. There are currently two other FTAs that their ratification is delayed (Peru and Colombia) by the Democrats. Is CORUS different from these other agreements in terms of domestic opposition to the deal? On China, the NYT article that you quote mentions that according to American officials these duties are unrelated to currency valuation. How easy would it be for China to challenge these duties in the WTO on this basis? Also, if you think this policy shift makes sense, why is this a step in the wrong direction? Bush took the measures on paper to look tough and to try to diffuse some political heat. Bush will not take tough measures against China, his corporate owners won't let him. This is like Bush's phony program to look tough on illegal immigration - just political butt covering. posted by: save_the_rustbelt on 04.02.07 at 12:40 PM [permalink]Why isn't the US-SK FTA also a step backward? I think Bhagwati has this issue pegged correctly. Bilateral FTAs mostly just manage trade and make multilateral trade opening more difficult. posted by: ross on 04.02.07 at 12:40 PM [permalink]The administration's view, defined by Robert Zoellick when he was USTR and maintained through Portman's and Schwab's tenures in the position, is that bilateral trade deals are what you go for when multilateral deals aren't available. That's pretty much been the case with the Doha round -- not that, in theory, bilateral deals couldn't wreck multi-lateral negotiations, but the ones negotiated in the last six year really can't be blamed for Doha slow progress. posted by: Zathras on 04.02.07 at 12:40 PM [permalink]Perhaps the bilateral FTAs did not take away resources that would have been put to better work on multilateral trade matters. But that is only one dimension of the problem with bilateral FTAs. They also entrench interests in countries that negotiate advantageous positions against multilateral openings that focus on the same economic activities. Perhaps I am biased by my own East Asia focus, but by and large these agreement appear to manage rather than free trade (see Japan, which refers to them as EPAs Economic Partnership Agreements, rather than FTAs). I can understand why in some contexts, especially given political considerations, FTAs may be embraced. But I don't buy the argument that they are a second best track towards free trade. I suspect time will reveal that FTAs harm prospects for free trade far more than help. posted by: ross on 04.02.07 at 12:40 PM [permalink]See also: I also thought at first that the CVD might be part of a yuan revaluation push, but it doesn't look that way. Based on NewPage testimony before Congress in January, the complaint was based on a narrower beef about preferential and concessionary loan treatment of the Chinese pulp and paper industry by government-run banks. I think we're looking more at an American effort to use CVD rulers as a crowbar to remove Chinese trade barriers, in a managed trade process similar to what we tried (rather unsuccessfully) with Japan when their trade surplus was considered the biggest threat to our way of life. Another interesting note is that it looks like the Strategic Economic Dialogue and China trade policy in general are being run by Henry Paulson and Treasury, and Commerce will appear primarily in a supporting role. I blog the issue at China Matters (http://chinamatters.blogspot.com) posted by: China Hand on 04.02.07 at 12:40 PM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a
Main home page Reviews of DanielDrezner.com: "Sharp but informal commentary on politics and foreign policy." -- The New Republic "Dan Drezner is terrific.... Excellent blog." -- Andrew Sullivan "Dan's stuff is always worth reading." -- Eugene Volokh "One of the essential weblogs." -- Gawker.com "Old battle horse of the blogosphere." -- Jewcy.com "Soft porn." -- Amitai Etzioni "Spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction." -- Glenn Greenwald "Monday morning quarterback... conservative robot... the very foundation of troubles in this country." -- not-so-random readers Contact me at: ddrezner@gmail.com (But click here to read my e-mail policy) Search the Site TNR's Open University Jacob Levy Glenn Reynolds Andrew Sullivan Mickey Kaus Virginia Postrel The Volokh Conspiracy Josh Marshall Crooked Timber OxBlog Real Clear Politics Kevin Drum Across the Aisle Economist's Free Exchange TNR's The Plank NRO's The Corner TAP's Tapped America Abroad Duck of Minerva Opinio Juris Brad DeLong Jeff Jarvis Mystery Pollster Mark Kleiman Meryl Yourish Megan McArdle Marginal Revolution Michael Munger Chris Lawrence Matthew Yglesias Hit and Run Cold Spring Shops Stephen Green Outside the Beltway Pejman Yousefzadeh Laura McKenna (11D) Elected Swineherd Phil Carter Joe Gandelman Winds of Change Andrew Samwick Greg Mankiw Dani Rodrik Roger L. Simon Tom Maguire Greg Djerejian The American Scene Post Global Democracy Arsenal Recent articles online "Foreign Policy Goes Glam."The National Interest, November/December 2007 "Rise of the Hipster Statesmen." Newsweek International, November 1, 2007 "The New New World Order." Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007 "Mind the Gap." The National Interest, January/February 2007 "The Grandest Strategy Of Them All." Washington Post, December 17, 2006 U.S. Trade Strategy: Free Versus Fair Council on Foreign Relations Press, September 2006. Complete online article archive Blog Archives June 2008May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 Academia Area studies Book club culture economics fence-sitting from Blogger globalization homeland security international relations law Mediasphere My very important posts New Republic outsourcing personal politics Sports The blog paper the blogosphere thesis ideas Trade and Development U.S. foreign policy website maintenance See full archives listing Recent Entries • Someone keep Fleet Street away from Bill Clinton• It rivals Buckley vs. Vidal, I tell you • So.... are the Clintons morons? • The New York Times didn't ask me, but then again, that's why I have this blog • Monica Crowley's jet black pot • Al Qaeda is losing • Speaking of karma.... • The blog post that writes itself • What made me laugh today • Where should Hillary go? Site Credits |