May 1, 2004
U.S. OUT OF WTO:
EU BUILDS 'HIT LIST' FOR LATEST TRADE WAR (PAUL THARP, April 30, 2004, NY Post)
The war of the apples and oranges is ready to erupt between Europe and the United States over a bitter trade stalemate that could hurt President Bush politically.The European Union has drawn up a hit list of American products it wants to sanction with penalties and duties to pressure the United States into dumping its allegedly illegal trade rules.
High on the list - which particularly targets swing states in the upcoming race for the White House - are oranges from Florida, apples from Washington State and tobacco and textiles from Southern states.
Trade experts say the EU's sanctions, which could cost as much as $100 million a year, could wreck export economies in those states and turn powerful regional voting blocs against the current administration.
The EU hit list was designed to hurt such politically sensitive areas as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Among items on the list are shoes, vegetables, rice and steel products.
A trade war, even a shooting war, would be preferable to allowing them to interfere with our national sovereignty. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 1, 2004 8:57 AM
It's not entirely clear to me why we needed the WTO in the first place. I thought GATT, as jury-rigged as it might have been, was doing reasonably well.
Posted by: Joe at May 1, 2004 7:03 PMIsn't doing something stupid just to prove you're not under someone else's control what has gotten the Palestinians to where they are now?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 1, 2004 10:11 PMI disagree with the 'out of the WTO' sentiment. Under WTO rules, the proposed EU retaliatory tariffs are also illegal. This is an EU power play and not fundamentally a WTO problem.
One reason I'm for a healthy WTO: Their recent ruling on our cotton subsidies. Neither political party has the courage to curtail our obscene ag subsidy system. It's bad for us, and is a major obstacle to the development of emerging economies. Only something like a WTO can help overcome special interest inertia (i.e. provide a justificaiton for freer trade) and can provide offsetting trade benefits to the U.S. for doing the right thing with respect to these subsidies. (Incidentally, with respect to agriculture, Europe is a worse offender than we are.)
The goals of the Byrd Amendment can be substantially accomplished without violating WTO rules, but the political payoffs the subsidies represent would be somewhat diluted.
Trade issues are complex and frustrating, but don't be too hasty about writing off the WTO.
Posted by: Dave Sheridan at May 1, 2004 11:35 PMDave:
We can achieve our goals by getting rid of our subsidies and tariffs unilaterally.
Posted by: oj at May 1, 2004 11:52 PMIndeed they are: the control of their leaders (whom they purport to support fully, though one might argue about that).
(By the way, if a rice war between the US and EU truly degenerates, might it possibly be mistaken, from afar, for a wedding?)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at May 2, 2004 2:27 AMBarry:
No one uses rice anymore, the environuts convuinced them it makes birds explode.
Posted by: oj at May 2, 2004 8:42 AM