Finally, people who actually understand global trade to probe Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods

The World Trade Organization has appointed the three-person team whose job it will be to determine if the tariffs levied by the US's Trump administration on Chinese goods are flouting its rules. The WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) announced it would look at the tariffs in January after receiving a complaint from the …

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

Oh dear, it sounds like it will be a narrowly focused review of whether the tariffs were applied in accordance with rules. Of course they weren't, this is Tromp.

If only they would, could, also examine the underlying issue, that China, both by central direction and by intentional lack of enforcement over industries, has executed every economic trick in the book to advance themselves at everyone else's expense. That is the rational response from an inculcated mindset of having been the victim of a world conspiracy against China for the last 200+ years.

Regulations are just playthings when you know you are the victim. Tariffs - any tariffs - would be simply more injustices imposed by the West. Any controls more injustices. So what can the West do?

Whatever your impression of this right now, compare with that 10 or 20 years from now. When does the obvious become alarmingly obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

Supposedly the EU has filed a dispute with the WTO regarding forced technology transfers and joint ventures, so the issue is at least being investigated somewhere within the organization.

That said, my understanding is that the USTR was unable to bring a case to the WTO because so few companies were willing to publicly cooperate with the investigation. Any company that accused China of these behaviors feared swift and severe retaliation. It wasn't an unfounded fear based off of past trade tensions and dealings with companies that outright refused JVs and FTTs.

It'll be interesting to see if the US can link their case with the one from the EU. I could see a WTO arbitrator channeling their inner Vogon, spanking the US for failing to use proper WTO channels and going at it alone instead of letting the WTO grind on the issue for a decade before finding some technicality to reject the complaint.

[Chronos]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

It'll be interesting to see if the US can link their case with the one from the EU.

No danger! Arsenoise has his piggy little eyes on tariffs on EU goods as well. The reaction from the EU, well, the sub-harmonics of all that gnashing of teeth would likely cause tsunami in far-flung places.

Expect more posturing and willy-waving with very little substance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

> If only they would, could, also examine the underlying issue, that China the US, both by central direction and by intentional lack of enforcement over industries, has executed every economic trick in the book to advance themselves at everyone else's expense. And they don't want anyone else doing it back to them.

FTFY.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

Going forward, the US should only obey WTO rulings as well as China has.

[phuzz]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

I'd be surprised if they ever bothered obeying them.

Isn't that the reason behind this whole situation? China getting a bit uppity and doing things that the US thought was only allowed for them?

[gbshore]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

LOL !!! Really??? Maybe you just don't understand simple economics and balance of trade... wow...

[vtcodger]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

You're suggesting that the US should steal technology? ... from whom?

[Swarthy]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

Not should, did. Now that the US is on top, they don't want anyone else pulling the same tricks.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

The feckless WTO _IS_ the problem. I'm sure that the USA will simply IGNORE them, tell them to go pee up a rope or perhaps a nice classic New York expression, like "Bite Me"...

You're forgetting the reason for the tariffs: China is VIOLATING OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. And they REFUSE to stop it. Cutting them out of the loop by raising the cost of having them IN the loop is one way to resolve this.

And the WTO was a _STUPID_ idea in the first place. And that's the point. The USA is a sovereign nation with a CONSTITUTION, and not some 3-member bureaucracy deciding policy. And that's the point.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

"You're forgetting the reason for the tariffs: China is VIOLATING OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. And they REFUSE to stop it."

Thems the rules that the Chinese set up to allow western companies in. They went in, eyes wide open and created new shared companies part-owned by Chinese companies/government. It's not right and it's unfair, but the foreign companies didn't have to take the deals offered and could have refused to play the game. But they feared being undercut by those who were prepared to hand over the family silver to get short term benefits and so joined in the rush to hand over their family silver too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

It Seems fair.

Imagining myself in China's position I might do something similar because of very real concerns of distrust.

if you want access to our people then we want authority in your company to prevent you from betraying the interests of our nation. Because we know you are a a business that sees value only in profit why wouldn't you leverage and try to overstep, if it was profitable for you to do so? Therefore Control and access into intercompany workings are appropriate because the company cannot be trusted to be loyal but my own men can. If you want to do business ina foreign country you must submit to the governance and philosophies of governance of that country, or simply don't do business there.

It would be stupid for me(China) not to otherwise or I may find control of my country and culture eroded through economic maneuvers to foreign I trests that have have a highest duty to their stockholders rather then to my countries culture , values and on going well-being of my people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope

Correction.

It would be stupid for me(China) to do otherwise.

And royalties should read loyalties

[Palpy]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope, Bob

Oh, I agree entirely. It would be different if the US had to reside on Earth, and trade for resources with other nations, but of course Amerika is its own planet, and needs NOTHING from ANY DAMNED CHINESE BRASTAD.

To be Bombastic about it.

Trade organizations and mutually-agreed rules are fine, even essential, for Earthly nations with deeply interconnected supply-and-demand networks. But USA is on its own planet! Americans need NOTHING from --

-- hey, dammit, Bob, put down that avocado! It was grown in Mexico, and as an AMERICAN you MUST NOT NEED ANYTHING FROM ANY OTHER COUNTRY EVER! And that TV is Chinese, Dump it NOW!

(Uh oh, I think I've caught Bombasticitis.)

Funny, Repubs used to be free-trade types. Times change.

Oh, and a special bootnote for Bob: Ratified self-executing treaties have the same legal standing as domestic legislation. ("A self-executing treaty provision is the supreme law of the land in the same sense as a federal statute...")

So treaties such as US participation in the WTO are, actually, as much as part of US law as free speech or the right to peaceable assembly.

It's in the US Constitution: Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 .

[Palpy]

Overly snarky post. I apologize to Bob.

Your comments -- damn the WTO and full steam ahead -- echo sentiments which are widely admired in some libertarian sectors of the US body politic. I shouldn't mock... to be honest, Python was on my mind as I wrote -- "Shhh! It's satire!" "No it's not, it's zany madcap humour!"

Re-reading, the zany humor part failed completely and the intended satire is snarky.

Some history, though.

The US joined the WTO in 1995. From the WTO's website: "The approval of the WTO required entire sections of US laws to be rewritten to conform with the WTO rules, similar to the way that treaties often redefine how the US will interact with other states. Had the agreement been voted on as a treaty, requiring a two-thirds majority in the Senate, it would have been defeated.”

That said, five years later, in 2000, a narrowly Republican Congress voted on a resolution to leave the WTO. The vote failed by an epic margin: 363 nay to 56 yea. So, five years in, lawmakers' consensus was that the US really needed to stay in the WTO.

And five years after that, the Cato Institute -- a libertarian, limited-government think-tank, not exactly a liberal tub of jello -- had this to say about the WTO:

"A global rule of law for trade is one of the huge advantages we enjoy today compared with the 1930s, when the race to raise trade barriers was unchecked by either economic sense or international agreements. ... Trade agreements have provided a rule of law for trade relations rather than the beggar-thy-neighbor rule of the jungle that prevailed so disastrously in the 1930s." Linky

OK, what about now? Again, the Cato Institute, this time from the Wall Street Journal, July, 2018:

"But let’s say Mr. Trump managed to get his way and pull the U.S. out of the WTO. The consequences for the world and U.S. economies would be immense. Among them: diminished trade growth, costly market and supply-chain disruptions, and the destruction of jobs and profits, especially in import- and export-dependent U.S. industries. The resulting trade barriers would compel some American companies either to downsize or move offshore." Linky

All this sums up the point I should have made, albeit respectfully: Trade agreements, even filtered through the bureaucracy of organizations like the WTO, are generally not just beneficial but, in the 21st Century, necessary to any developed economy.

[Sanguma]

Re: Looking through the wrong end of the telescope, [Bot]

"So treaties such as US participation in the WTO are, actually, as much as part of US law as free speech or the right to peaceable assembly.

It's in the US Constitution: Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 ."

But bombastic bob doesn't know that, so it's obvious that bombastic bob isn't an American citizen. Should his name be bombastic bot instead? Do botnets have human rights? Such as the right of "self" expression? Could his programmer comment?

[Anonymous Coward]

This won't concern Trump

As I'm sure he's never heard of the WTO or GATT, if he's made of aware of them he'll decide that "the US got a very bad deal" and pull out, not knowing or caring about the consequences to US and world trade. Then we all win (in the long run) because the damage to the US economy would guarantee he loses the election next year.

If a democrat wins he really WILL have to go on the "apology tour" that critics accused of Obama of. Though apologies alone won't be enough to quickly repair the damage Trump is inflicting on the standing of the United States in the world.

[Sigfried]

Re: This won't concern Trump

Oh yes, just what the US needs, another US-hating ignorant shit of a POTUS like Obumbler to go and abase himself before all and sundry. Bound to be popular with those who can see a mark to be exploited, but not so good for the real world.

Trump has, like any US President, the chance to go overboard, but what he is at least attempting is a rebalancing of the trade with China.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This won't concern Trump

Because Trump isn't abasing himself with his obvious deference to Putin, and SALUTING A NORTH KOREAN GENERAL! He's in love with dictators, and if he could he'd dissolve the congress and declare his family dynastic rulers of the Empire of America.

[aregross]

Again, there are always 2 sides to a story... Unfortunately, both are right (in this case).

[Doctor Syntax]

Given that Trump has been very - err ?generous - in spreading his tariffs about he's not going to find much help in getting the complaint set aside. Taking on one at a time would have made better sense. Presumably the WTO's findings are going to power law suits all over the place. No chance of lawyers' children starving.

[Nick Kew]

Trump is indeed the only one in step. It's not just China, but the world's other big economies (Europe and Japan) and his neighbours (Canada and Mexico) that are out of step - the latter in what looks like violation of the NAFTA treaty.

But I doubt the WTO's findings will lead anywhere. The question is rather more, will the WTO survive Trump's wrath at all? China's move in taking this back to GATT may have been rather clever: it raises the stakes so far that merely leaving (or disbanding) the WTO may not get Trump entirely off the hook of international law.

Aside: why do Trump's Trolls always post as Anonymous Coward when they put up strawmen like "if you criticise Trump you're supporting China's regime" (as in the top of this page)?

[Nick Kew]

Hmm. Saying "top of this page" was wrong: the first post there is anon but fairly balanced. I guess that Aside belongs in another thread.

[bombastic bob]

"will the WTO survive Trump's wrath at all? "

Not at all. They'll soon decay into irrelevance. After all WHAT can they really DO about it? Nothing. They haven't stopped China's abuses. Their presence is like a bunch of sheep telling wolves to "don't, stop..." and so NOW that their ineffectiveness is obvious to the most casual observer, the rams and shepherds and sheep dogs are going to put a stop to it the old fashioned way.

Or something like that. WTO can just BLANK the FEEL off!

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

>Aside: why do Trump's Trolls always post as Anonymous Coward

The Register doesn't support cyrilic usernames ?

[Mark Exclamation]

Hypocrites, anyone...?

"The WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) announced it would look at the tariffs in January after receiving a complaint from the Chinese delegation back in May 2018."

Since China doesn't abide by decisions made by international bodies (Philippines Vs China re: South China Sea, anybody?), why should anyone waste their time looking into China's complaints? Perhaps when they accept the neutral umpire's decision, and not until.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hypocrites, anyone...?

U$A will do; U$ law is law 4 world, if not, war.

[codejunky]

Hmm

I wondered how long this would go on until China or someone put in a complaint. This is where Trump is pretty open to criticism and one of the big differences between him and Hillary. Trump was much better at domestic economic policy but not so good for foreign trade while Hillary was not so good for domestic economic policy but was better for foreign trade policy.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Hmm

(in my opinion, and that of others) Mrs. Clinton is only good at scamming people and shredding evidence, beginning with the White Water and Rose Law Firm stuff... and the breaking of phones with hammers and "losing" 30,000 subpoenae'd e-mails that most likely demonstrate the connection between the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments getting favors by contributing to it (which is why she had that private e-mail server, to conduct that sort of 'business' outside of government record keeping laws). At least, that's the theory.

So her "foreign policy" would be the kind that enriches her and her family, not necessarily the kind that "Makes America Great Again". And that's the point.

[mhenriday]

WTO blues

Given that the Trump administration in general and Mr Trump in particular seem determined to dismantle the WTO (the US has been blocking all new nominees to the organisations appelate body since August 2017), it seems unlikely that it would obey any ruling by this three-person team, were it to go against the US....

To Mr Trump et consortes, the notion that the US, the «essential nation», would have to obey the rulings of any international body is anathema....

Henri

[gbshore]

LOL !!!! comments made from people who benefit from the good we do. Maybe today, of all days, you should just thank the U.S. for what we did today (with our close Allies) to make even posting here possible. But, if you think that three people from those Countries in South America are the ultimate arbiters, LOL !!!!.... Take a look at the trade imbalances we have...it is ABSURD....past President's for the U.S. made these preposterous agreements for reason of power and political influence... not for our well being. EVERY Country should negotiate FAIR and BALANCED trade agreement...CLEARLY, the imbalance between US and China is ridiculously one sided...so what, we should do nothing??? As my Brit friends say, PISS OFF !!!!!!!

[imanidiot]

"you should just thank the U.S. for what we did today (with our close Allies) to make even posting here possible."

A: You can fuck right off. Anybody that uses that argument deserves a swift kick in the balls because it is NEVER someone that actually had ANY involvement in that war. I'm thankful for the veterans that actually did fight in the European and Pacific theaters. The nation and especially it's citizens don't just get to claim special status or "gratitude" after the fact. The US did the right thing back then. It did a lot of stupid, irresponsible shit after that (Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak to name but a few).

B: "EVERY Country should negotiate FAIR and BALANCED trade agreement", yes, yes they should. And that INCLUDES the US. Look at the history of trade negotiations worldwide and you'll find the US doesn't really like actually doing those sorts of deals.

[MonkeyCee]

Da, comrade

спасибо за жертву двадцати миллионов ваших соотечественников.

[fpx]

Antigua and Barbuda

The US has ignored WTO rules before. One of my favorites is when the US forced credit card companies to stop money flowing from US gamblers to online casinos in Antigua and Barbuda, which violated a free trade agreement between the two countries. Antigua and Barbuda complained to the WTO, which ruled in their favor. When the US did not comply, Antigua and Barbuda got a free pass to retaliate by ignoring US copyright. See https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm

[Anonymous Coward]

Source of the trade defecit

The biggest source of the problem is US companies offshoring manufacturing to China.

U.S. manufacturing, as measured by the number of jobs, declined 34% between 1998 and 2010. As these industries declined, so has U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace.

Christ, even those lame "Make America Great Again" hats are made in bloody China.

Capitalism is eating itself.

[Kev99]

"...are inconsistent with the US obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994". Is anyone surprised by this? Besides those who have no grasp of economics, the law, treaties, etc.

[J.G.Harston]

You inadvertantly highlight one of the misunderstandings in international trade.

The tarrifs aren't levied on China, they are levied on Amercians who buy Chinese goods.

[SundogUK]

Who then stop buying Chinese goods and thus improve the balance of trade in the US's favour.

[J.G.Harston]

Only if the market is elastic (is that right, I can never remember which). With inelastic markets, putting tariffs on imports just means importers are forced to pay more money for the now more-expensive goods, or are forced to pay more money for the domestic goods that used to be more expensive than the foreign goods, but are now cheaper than the foreign goods - but still more expensive in absolute terms.

Eg:

domestic widget costs $2, foreign widget costs $1, consumer spends $1 on foreign widget.

tarrif put on foreign widget to make it cost $2

consumer now forced to spend $2 on foreign widge or $2 on domestic widget