PDA

View Full Version : WTO Slaps $150 Million Fine on U.S. Exports



Nickdfresh
11-26-2004, 08:32 PM
WTO slaps punitive taxes on U.S. exports
Escalation of trade dispute could cost $150 million per year
Friday, November 26, 2004 Posted: 5:39 PM EST (2239 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The World Trade Organization imposed penalties Friday on a host of U.S. exports, escalating a trade dispute the Bush administration has struggled to defuse by unsuccessfully urging Congress to repeal legislation aimed at protecting American steelmakers.

The administration signaled it would accept the penalties in the short term, but also warned that the United States would aggressively protect its own trading interests and expects fair treatment from the WTO.

"We've worked hard to comply with the WTO," President Bush said, speaking to reporters in Crawford, Texas. "It's important that all nations comply with WTO rulings."

Bush said he has worked with Congress "to get in compliance," and "we expect the WTO as well to treat our trading partners as they treat us."

In Geneva, Switzerland, the 148-nation WTO, which referees global commerce, approved punitive taxes long sought by the European Union and other countries because of a law they say unfairly protects U.S. steel companies and other industries.

EU trade chief Peter Mandelson said the sanctions could be applied early next year.

The 2000 law, known as the Byrd amendment for its main backer, Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat of West Virginia, lets the U.S. government fine foreign companies that it judges to be selling goods in America at below-market prices. The revenue is paid to U.S. companies to help them better compete.

Two years ago, the WTO ruled the law was illegal, arguing that it punishes exporters to the United States twice: First they are fined, then those fines are given to their competitors.

American officials said Friday that the United States would comply with the ruling that declared the law illegal.

But WTO members expressed skepticism about the compliance promises.

"The United States cannot point to any progress for the repeal of the Byrd amendment," even though it has "received ample time to bring itself into compliance," Canada trade official Rambod Behboodi said.

EU trade official Raimund Raith said Brussels wants the Bush administration to "transmit this message to Congress" and defend "U.S. credibility in the WTO."

But overwhelming Senate support for the Byrd amendment makes changes unlikely.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, An Iowa Republican, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the WTO ruling. He criticized how the law was implemented -- by being inserted in an appropriations bill instead of going through the authorizing committee process.

"The fact that we are now subject to sanctions only underscores the need for quick congressional action," said Grassley, whose committee oversees international trade issues. "I intend to consult closely with my colleagues in determining the next steps."

The value of the sanctions hasn't been determined, but trade officials estimated them at more than $150 million a year. That compares with the $2 billion in sanctions the EU threatened in its successful bid to force the United States to lift illegal tariffs on foreign steel last year.

The EU was joined in the complaint by Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, India and Chile.

Targeted penalties
Other products on the list include U.S. cod, apples, glassware, cigarettes, mobile homes, textiles and heavy machinery made by companies such as Caterpillar Inc., based in Illinois -- the home state of House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

The products, say EU officials, were chosen because they are produced in politically important parts of the United States, and the new duties "could help Congress focus its mind on compliance," said former EU trade spokeswoman Arancha Gonzalez, who stepped down this week.

The Consuming Industries Trade Action Committee, a Washington-based group representing manufacturers, farmers, retailers and other businesses, has called the Byrd amendment "the equivalent of a tax on American consumers."

Companies launch trade cases "in hopes of not only closing the U.S. market to global competition but also gaining significant financial rewards," the group's chairman, Michael Fanning, has said. The measure "clearly distorts trade by creating a big incentive for companies who don't want to compete in the global market."-----

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 08:38 PM
The US claims to be a great beacon of free trade and capitalism in the world but is as protectionist as fuck.

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
The US claims to be a great beacon of free trade and capitalism in the world but is as protectionist as fuck.

So is Europe.

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 09:08 PM
Ha I knew you would say that.

The people that really lose are those small countries in Africa and South America.

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 09:11 PM
I'll give you an example though.

When I fly to the States most of the time I'm going to have an internal flight once I arrive.

That has to be on a US airline no matter who I came across with. The funny thing was the excuse for this even pre 9-11 was security which everyone knew at that time was non existent on US domestic flights.

On the other hand if you fly say to London you could still get a connecting flight on a US carrier up to Scotland.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 10:47 PM
Well, fortunately you can't fly on Pan Am any longer over Scotland.

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 11:03 PM
Oof.

I totalled my car on the interstate near Lockerbie last month and the ambulance driver told me about working that night.

He's still fucked up about it.

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
Oof.

I totalled my car on the interstate near Lockerbie last month and the ambulance driver told me about working that night.

He's still fucked up about it.


Sorry about your car.

A girl from my high school was on that flight. Her ex-boyfriend lived in my house for a year and I frequent a bar owned by her brothers. Very sad indeed.:(

Vivian Campbell
11-28-2004, 06:35 PM
I love how Bush and the GOP Congress yell "how high" when ever the WTO issues their worthless decrees. I recall that the U.S. Constitution delegates law making authority to Congress, not to an unelected group that clearly has European interests at heart. What ever happened to national sovereignty? I thought American citizens control our government. I guess the rest of the world has a say in that now. If Adams, Washington, and Jefferson saw a WTO in the Colonies future, they would have never bothered to drop an ounce of sweat in 1776.

The Congress should respond not by legislating to the tune of the WTO, but by pulling out of this cartel and instituting tariffs against any and all nations that seek to rail against our foreign policy and our private companies. Why should we allow Europe, China, Japan, et al access one of the largest markets in the world for free?! This is the same economic policy that turned Great Britain from a super power to a mere shell of its former self.

Free trade is not in the interest of any advanced country. It only enriches the third world and a small minority of westerners that seek to hoard wealth rather than see the expansion of it.