What is fair about fair trade?

by YankeeJim | January 30, 2012 at 01:00 pm
62 views | 0 Recommendations | 3 comments

Photos

China Trade

China Trade

see larger image

uploaded by YankeeJim

I have been advocating that nations (especially ours) should try to optimize return on national resources. In part, this is accomplished by controlling the size and skill mix of the population commensurate with needs and in ratio with scarce resources beginning with clean air and water, followed by raw materials of all kinds needed to produce products and including renewable energy and petroleum. In the process, nations are expected to be competitive and stingy.

If you have a whole bunch of something that other nation’s need and for which they are in short supply, you have something to barter with. The value will fluctuate by demand and by internal policies. We see that every day with oil, for instance.

Now, when some nations appear to be unfair about their controlling access to scarce resources there are various ways to counter that behavior. The first line is diplomatic and to do some holding back of your own.

When the push and shove becomes to fierce, wars break out as we have seen throughout history.

Accusing China of holding back and manipulating resources seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black to me. The circumstance emphasizes the need for America to attend its trade and economic development policies in earnest.


WTO: China Unfairly Limits Export Of Raw Materials

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:47pm 

John Heilprin, Associated Press

Get today's manufacturing headlines and news - Sign up now!

GENEVA (AP) — The World Trade Organization ruled Monday that China unfairly limited exports of nine raw materials to protect domestic manufacturers.

A WTO appeals body rejected China's appeal of an earlier ruling in July that concluded the Asian economic powerhouse had violated international trade rules. The appeals body largely sided with the United States, European and Mexico, which had taken issue with Chinese restrictions on its exports of nine materials used widely in the steel, aluminum and chemical industries.

They had complained that China drives up prices on overseas shipments of the materials by setting export duties, quotas and licensing requirements on them, giving the country's manufacturers an unfair edge over competitors. But China had argued that its export limits were needed to protect the environment.

The ruling affects China's exports of certain forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorous and zinc. In it, the WTO appeals body says China must now "bring its export duty and export quota measures into conformity with its WTO obligations."

The issue has sparked tension with some of China's major trading partners. In a statement, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk called the ruling "a tremendous victory for the United States — particularly itsmanufacturers and workers."

He called it a decision that "ensures that core manufacturing industries in this country can get the materials they need to produce and compete on a level playing field."

The European Commission said in a statement that while the case requires China to comply, the EU "continues to be deeply troubled by China's use of export restrictions" for other rare earth and industrial raw materials.

China's WTO mission in Geneva said it "deeply regrets" that the appeals body upheld major parts of the earlier panel's conclusions, but noted that some other aspects were reversed. It vowed to abide by the WTO findings.

But it explained that Chinese government had in recent years "reinforced its administration on certain resource products, especially the 'high-pollution, high-energy-consuming and resource-dependent' products" to protect the environment and conserve natural resources.”

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
1
"thirty-aught-six"

The once leading industrial nations dumped all their high pollutant manufacturing capability into China to meet their own restrictive environmental standards and now complain that China wants to withhold the building blocks of that industrial process. LOL. More blatant hypocrisy. The EU and N. America have no one to blame but their own sociopolitical agendas and their denouncement of industry as evil. Had they been willing to work with their domestic industrial base on finding a technological answer to industrial waste and a progressive timeline for industry to achieve the new EPA goals China would not have become the industrial capital for world exports of products once manufactured in the industrialized world. Don't blame the Chinese for being willing to hold onto that capacity while working incrementally to resolve their own EPA standards. We are their lesson not to repeat.

0
YankeeJim

Did you alter ego write that?

1
"thirty-aught-six"

You'll have to reference that question if you want an answer.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from