Steel tariffs lifted
The Bush Administration lifted its special steel tariffs today. William Branigin reports in the Washington Post, here: "Bush Administration Lifts Steel Tariffs". Jonathan Weisman surveys reactions in this story from tomorrow's Post: "Bush Rescinds Tariffs on Steel. Trade War Averted; Industry Angry". The Economist reports here: "Scrapped"
This AP story from tomorrow's New York Times ("Bush Steel Tariffs Move Avoids Trade War") spends time on the politics of the decision. The reaction of a number of Democratic candidates was interesting:
"Four Democratic presidential candidates -- Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley Clark -- accused Bush of abandoning steel producers without offering plans to retain jobs in the industry and other manufacturing sectors.
Gephardt said that ``rather than bow to the pressure of our trading partners,'' Bush should have negotiated further with the WTO. Dean said the tariff repeal ``is just another example of this administration playing politics with peoples' lives.'' "
Peter Gallagher notes that this "
is another victory for the multilateral system in the management of trade disputes...":
"US steel safeguards gone: WTO survives!" (he also notes that we will still have tariffs on steel, just not these extra tariffs). David Sanger in a news analysis in tomorrow's
New York Times argues that the decision strengthens the WTO:
"Backing Down on Steel Tariffs, U.S. Strengthens Trade Group".
"For the first time in his nearly three years in office, the president, who has often reveled in the exercise of American power, finally met an international organization that had figured out how to hit back at the administration where it would hurt. Employing relatively untested powers, the eight-year-old World Trade Organization authorized European and Asian nations to devise retaliatory tariffs against the United States, just 11 months before a presidential election. Not surprisingly, the Europeans pulled out an electoral map and proudly announced they would single out products made in the states Mr. Bush most needs to win a second term.
In fact, what the W.T.O. accomplished when it forced the Bush White House into a rare 180-degree turn was exactly what its American champions envisioned and its opponents warned about during the first big globalization debates of the 1990's. Acting as the final arbiter of the world's trade rules, it reversed the politics of protectionism, making sure that nations that protect their markets � in the name of saving jobs � are forced to pay a steep price."
Maybe in the short run, but tomorrow's Weisman story in the
Post has some disturbing quotes suggesting a different outcome is possible in the longer run:
"Gary Clyde Hufbauer, an economist at the Institute for International Economics, expressed concern that Bush's actions may set back international trade liberalization by focusing so much political anger on the WTO. Republican tariff supporters did in fact avoid criticizing Bush, saving their denunciations for the world trade body.
"I respect the president's decision to accommodate the ill-conceived WTO ruling against the safeguard measure and avoid stiff retaliatory tariffs," said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa). "However, this entire process reveals just how badly broken the WTO dispute-resolution mechanism really is." "
And note Gephardt's reaction in the AP story quoted above.
Brad DeLong focuses on the evolution of administration spin on the tariffs since the WTO decision, in a series of posts: (a) "The Evolution of Bush Steel PR"; (b) "Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? Part CCCCLXXVIII" ;(c) "Why Can't the Bush Administration Ever Tell the Truth?".
The administration claimed it lifted the tariffs because they had done their job: "President's Statement on Steel" (which also links to the actual proclamation). DeLong claims that the administration is not telling the truth about the reason the tariffs are being lifted. I think he is right. On the other hand, the administration's proclamation isn't scapegoating foreign nations or the WTO. A nice contrast to Reps. Gephardt and English (above).
For background: I pulled together some links on the tariffs and the WTO decision in September, when the appeal was decided. The post is here: "What a revolting development this is!".
