Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross has a new op-ed in the WSJ. One thing he does in the op-ed is include a chart of average applied tariffs for the U.S., EU and China, after which he says this:
As the nearby chart shows, China’s tariffs are higher than those of the U.S. in 20 of the 22 major categories of goods. Europe imposes higher tariffs than the U.S. in 17 of 22 categories, though the chart does show that the EU and China are much different regarding tariff rates.
To me, the obvious conclusion to draw here is that the U.S. needs an FTA with the EU and China to get all of these tariffs down.
He also says this:
... unfortunately, in its annual reports, the WTO consistently casts the increase of trade enforcement cases as evidence of protectionism by the countries lodging the complaints. Apparently, the possibility never occurs to the WTO that there are more trade cases because there are more trade abuses.
We've talked about this issue before here on this blog. My sense is that the latest monitoring report on G20 trade measures fixes things. Here are some excerpts:
The Monitoring Report aims to shed light on the latest trends in the implementation of a broad range of policy measures that facilitate as well as restrict the flow of trade and to provide an update of the state of global trade. The Monitoring Report neither seeks to pronounce itself on whether a trade measure is protectionist, nor does it question the explicit right of Members to take certain trade measures. The Reports continue to evolve in terms of the coverage and analysis of trade-related issues and seek to take into account discussions among G20 economies.
...
With respect to trade remedy actions, it has been highlighted in discussions among G20 economies, as well as more broadly in the WTO, that several of these measures are taken to address what is perceived by some as a market distortion resulting from trade practices of entities in another trading partner. The WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements permit WTO Members to impose antidumping (AD) or countervailing (CVD) duties to offset what is perceived to be injurious dumping or subsidization of products exported from one Member to another. The Monitoring Reports are not in a position to establish if, where or when such perceived distortive practices have taken place. The WTO Monitoring Reports have never categorized the use of trade remedies as protectionist, WTO-inconsistent or criticized governments for utilizing them. The main objective of monitoring these measures is to provide added transparency and to identify emerging trends in the application of trade policy measures.
Problem solved?
