For the United States, it is time to ask: Does the international law of the World Trade Organization still exist?
As part of retaliation for trade restrictions between the United States and China, the Chinese government has banned the export of several critical materials that apply to both commercial and military uses. high tech production. It is unclear whether this Chinese action would qualify for a national security exception. principle Based on WTO law prohibiting export embargoes and other export restrictions.
However, in responding to this latest trade action by China in the flare-up of trade tensions between the two countries, the US government did not refer to WTO law. The US media also did not report on this event.
For the United States, it is as if this international law no longer exists.
This inaction is becoming increasingly common in the United States. Emulating the first Trump administration, the Biden administration has spent the past four years largely ignoring WTO law.
President Trump imposes illegal tariffs on $360 billion Import of Chinese products continues to apply and is subject to 100 percent customs duty. china imported car. WTO ruling Declarations that these tariffs are illegal under international law have been ignored.
Under President Biden, U.S. trade negotiators rarely mention WTO obligations. And although they still attend the WTO in Geneva, it is all too obvious to the rest of the world that from the US perspective the WTO is no longer the center of world trade, and tariff and other reductions. Removing barriers to world trade is no longer the primary objective of U.S. trade policy.
Now President-elect Donald Trump is back on the scene, threatening to raise tariffs even more when he returns to the White House in January.
Recently, he announced The executive order imposes a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10% tariff on imports from China, he said. This is due to dissatisfaction with the efforts of these countries to prevent illegal drugs, especially fentanyl and illicit drugs. Immigrants crossing the American border. At this point, it is unclear whether these specific tariff threats are tactical posturing or actual intent.
This latest salvo is in addition to that of the president-elect. election promise Increase tariffs on all imports from China to 60% and on all imports from other countries to 20%. he also threatened If the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates) try to launch a substitute that does not exist before, there will be a 100 percent tax on imports from them. Convert tariffable currencies to US dollars.
All in all, it seems like Trump meant it. spoke to Chicago business leaders During the campaign, he claimed that “tariff” was “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.”
Throughout the course of all of these actions and threats by both Biden and Trump, there has been little mention by the U.S. government or media of the fact that all such measures are likely to violate treaty obligations because they result in trade discrimination. do not have. The United States is a member of the WTO.
Obviously, the US government would not want to draw attention to this inconvenient fact. Whether Republicans or Democrats, these days they cite international trade law and other international laws only when they deem it to be in the immediate U.S. interest.
As for the U.S. media, why bother in reporting on something that, in American journalists' minds, is no longer a factor in trade policy-making or government decision-making, treaty obligations or not? Is it? Why mention international trade law when it seems irrelevant?
This silence speaks volumes about a general retreat in America's commitment to international law and the rule of law.
The United States helped create the international institutions that provide us with what little international cooperation we have in the world, but we Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, have found that many of these institutions , along with the international laws that bind them, are gradually being abandoned. At the same time, American journalism is increasingly abdicating its responsibility to inform the American public that this is happening and also inform them of the potential consequences.
America's attitude and actions regarding international trade law are just one example of this abandonment. The absence of international rule of law is the rule of international power. Currently, both U.S. political parties seem to primarily prefer to control power in international affairs, but in time both parties will question how true such an approach is in a world in dire need of greater international cooperation. You will come to understand how short-sighted you are.
In trade and other areas, we Americans may think we have enough power to make the rest of the world do our bidding, but that is not the case. Nor should we force other countries to do what we want, even if we could. To do so goes against everything we should believe as Americans.
our constitution gives us strength To “punish violations of national law.” I'm not telling you to ignore them. International law still exists. Those of us in the United States might start by remembering this in trade and in many other areas.
Former Congressman James Backus (R-Fla.) is a professor of world affairs at the University of Central Florida and an adjunct fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former chairman of the World Trade Organization's Appeals Committee. his latest book, Democracy for a Sustainable World will be published by Cambridge University Press in May.
