SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
global trade watch
Even Those Who Believe Tariffs Are Useful Think Trump's Trade War Makes 'Zero Sense'
One economist warned the tariffs would amount to the "largest tax increase... that has ever been imposed" on working-class families.
Feb 03, 2025
The trade war that U.S. President Donald Trump launched over the weekend by announcing sweeping new tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China drew intense criticism from experts and analysts across the ideological spectrum, including those who believe strategically deployed tariffs can help protect domestic jobs and workers.
"Tariffs are a powerful, effective tool to deliver certain goals. But Trump's Canada/China/Mexico tariffs make zero sense. And even undermine tariffs' legit uses," Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote on social media late Sunday, expressing agreement with United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain.
Fain said in a
statement that the UAW "supports aggressive tariff action to protect American manufacturing jobs as a good first step to undoing decades of anti-worker trade policy," pointing specifically to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its successor agreement that Trump negotiated during his first White House term.
The union does not, however, "support using factory workers as pawns in a fight over immigration or drug policy," Fain continued. "The national emergency we face is not about drugs or immigration, but about a working class that has fallen behind for generations while corporate America exploits workers abroad and consumers at home for massive Wall Street paydays."
The officially stated purpose for Trump's 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports and 10% tariffs on Chinese imports is to confront what the White House described as the "extraordinary threat" posed by the movement of migrants and drugs across the southern and northern U.S. borders.
But Wallach argued Sunday that using tariffs to address immigration and the flow of drugs "is like trying surgery using a saxophone—wrong tool!"
"After decades of an American trade policy run by and for the largest corporations and to the detriment of American workers, independent farmers, and small businesses, we certainly do need a new approach," she added. "But simply imposing 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and another 10% on China will not rebuild American manufacturing/create U.S. manufacturing jobs or raise wages. Particularly, if such tariffs can be axed, lowered, or upped at the president's whim for reasons unrelated to trade/jobs."
"While tariffs can play a constructive role in protecting U.S. jobs and enforcing labor and environmental standards when part of a strategic industrial policy, Trump's approach is neither strategic nor appropriate."
Trump told reporters late last week that he is "not looking for a concession" in response to the new tariffs, which prompted swift retaliation from Canada, Mexico, and China.
The announced tariffs, which are set to take effect on Tuesday, also shook U.S. and global equity markets as Trump threatened additional duties against imports from European Union nations and admitted Americans could experience "some pain" stemming from the trade war. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Monday that her country reached an agreement with Trump to delay implementation of the tariffs on Mexican imports for a month, reportedly in exchange for the deployment of 10,000 Mexican soldiers to the country's northern border.
Contrary to Trump's insistence that tariffs are paid by targeted nations, they are in fact paid by U.S. importers, who then either eat the costs or pass them on to consumers through higher prices. Economist Dean Baker noted that the new tariffs amount to "a tax increase of roughly $200 billion a year ($1,600 per family) that will overwhelmingly be paid by moderate-income and middle-income families."
"It is the largest tax increase on them that has ever been imposed," Baker wrote Sunday. "And retaliation from both countries is likely to impose additional costs."
Melinda St. Louis, Global Trade Watch director at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "no matter the intractable problem, Trump's go-to playbook is to bully our neighbors through tariffs and to scapegoat immigrants."
"Instead of addressing the actual causes or seeking real solutions to the complex public health crisis surrounding fentanyl, Trump jumps to impose damaging and self-defeating across-the-board tariffs and to spout more hateful rhetoric that dehumanizes our immigrant neighbors," said St. Louis. "While tariffs can play a constructive role in protecting U.S. jobs and enforcing labor and environmental standards when part of a strategic industrial policy, Trump's approach is neither strategic nor appropriate."
"Using tariffs to bully countries to advance an anti-immigrant and anti-humanitarian agenda will do nothing to support U.S. workers and will make our immigrant neighbors less safe," she added.
The tariffs also drew backlash from the right-wing Wall Street Journaleditorial board, which slammed the president for launching "the dumbest trade war in history."
"Bad policy has damaging consequences," the editorial board wrote late Sunday, "whether or not Mr. Trump chooses to admit it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US-China Electric Vehicle Dispute Shows Old Trade Rules Imperil Climate Action
"The climate crisis is too urgent for the U.S. or any country to allow outdated trade rules... to distract us from enacting bold climate policies," argued one campaigner.
Mar 26, 2024
As the Chinese government on Tuesday formally challenged what it termed "discriminatory" U.S. electric vehicle subsidies, climate action advocates warned that antiquated trade policies and international bickering must not be allowed to hamper the urgently needed green energy transition.
"Immediate climate action must take priority over compliance with outdated trade rules that were inked long before governments worldwide began taking the climate crisis seriously," said Trade Justice Education Fund executive director Arthur Stamoulis in response to the move by Beijing.
Melinda St. Louis, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, agreed that "the climate crisis is too urgent for the U.S. or any country to allow outdated trade rules—written long before governments were taking climate change seriously—to distract us from enacting bold climate policies."
"Existing trade rules need to be rewritten so that trade pacts can become tools for helping the world advance towards a clean, just, and sustainable economy—but we don't have time to wait."
China—which has heavily subsidized its own electric vehicle industry—on Tuesday filed a complaint against the United States at the World Trade Organization (WTO), taking aim at rules for EV tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a sweeping package signed by President Joe Biden in 2022.
"Under the pretext of 'responding to climate change' and 'environmental protection,' the U.S. has formulated discriminatory policies through its Inflation Reduction Act regarding new energy vehicles, excluding products from China and other WTO members from subsidies," said a Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson, according to a translation by the South China Morning Post.
"Such exclusions distort fair competition, disrupt global industrial and supply chains, and violate WTO principles such as national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment," added the spokesperson. "We urge the U.S. to abide by WTO rules, respect the development trend of the global new energy vehicle industry, and rectify its discriminatory policies."
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said that "we are carefully reviewing the consultation request" and called out the People's Republic of China for using "unfair, nonmarket policies and practices to undermine fair competition and pursue the dominance of the PRC's manufacturers both in the PRC and in global markets."
Tai also praised "President Biden's leadership," represented by the passage of the IRA, which she described as "a groundbreaking tool for the United States to seriously address the global climate crisis and invest in U.S. economic competitiveness." She said the U.S. would "continue to pursue major new investments in clean energy technology, from solar and wind to batteries and electric vehicles and beyond."
The Associated Pressreported Tuesday that "the real-world impact of the case is uncertain. If the United States loses and appeals the ruling, China's case likely would go nowhere. That is because the WTO's Appellate Body, its supreme court, hasn't functioned since late 2019, when the U.S. blocked the appointment of new judges to the panel."
St. Louis said that "China's threatened trade attack against climate provisions in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act is another example of why the U.S. and other nations should begin working with one another towards an immediate moratorium on the use of trade challenges against clean energy transition and other climate measures."
"We've been warning since before the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act that antiquated WTO rules would threaten our ability to realize the green transition," she noted. "Prominent labor, environmental, and consumer groups have urged the U.S. government to boldly implement the IRA as intended despite trade pact attacks—and to make a commitment not to use such trade rules to challenge other countries' climate policies."
Stamoulis pointed out that "governments worldwide are wasting considerable amounts of time and political capital attempting to squeeze potential climate measures into compliance with outdated trade and investment rules."
"Ultimately, existing trade rules need to be rewritten so that trade pacts can become tools for helping the world advance towards a clean, just, and sustainable economy—but we don't have time to wait," he continued. "A 'climate peace clause' that brings an immediate end to the ongoing trade attacks against climate measures is a necessary interim step towards helping governments transition to clean energy on the rapid timeline that is required to head off the worse possible impacts of climate change."
"A moratorium on the use of international trade agreements to challenge climate policies would: (1) help governments safeguard existing climate mitigation and transition measures by protecting them from trade challenge; (2) create the space for governments to adopt the bolder climate policies that justice and science demand without fear or threat of new trade challenges; and (3) incentivize and offer countries time to work together and resolve the underlying tensions between current trade law and the imperative for climate action," he explained.
St. Louis also called for implementing a climate peace clause to "temporarily halt cases like this one so countries can prioritize the green transition and revise the WTO rules currently creating unnecessary hurdles."
"We must move forward with IRA implementation and work to enact even bolder policies to transform our economy for a clean energy future, and support other countries that do the same," she asserted.
China's WTO complaint comes on the heels of the hottest year in human history—which concluded with a United Nations climate summit that scientists called a "tragedy for the planet" because the conference's final agreement didn't demand a phaseout of fossil fuels that are driving global heating.
Soaring temperatures have continued this year, with European Union scientists recently announcing that last month was the warmest February on record. Carlo Buentempo, director of the E.U.'s Copernicus Climate Change Service, stressed that "the climate responds to the actual concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so, unless we manage to stabilize those, we will inevitably face new global temperature records and their consequences."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sensing Keystone XL Rejection, TransCanada Scopes NAFTA Lawsuit
Provisions in trade pact may provide legal basis for suing U.S. over tar sands pipeline
Aug 10, 2015
TransCanada Corporation, the company behind the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, is furtively planning its next steps--including suing the U.S. government--if U.S. President Barack Obama rejects the permits which would allow construction of the project to move forward, the Canadian Press reported on Monday.
While the company has publicly maintained hope that Obama will permit it to build the pipeline, those close to the project say TransCanada expects rejection and is quietly considering suing the government under the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), using articles in the pact that protect companies from discrimination, unfair or arbitrary treatment, and expropriation.
NAFTA also includes a mechanism known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which allows corporations to sue a country for damages based on projected "lost profits" and "expected future profits." As Common Dreams has previously reported, the potential award has no monetary cap.
Experts have warned that TransCanada could bring a NAFTA challenge over Keystone XL. Natural Resources Defense Council international program director Jake Schmidt toldPolitico in February that such a case was "definitely a possibility."
Derek Burney, former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. and chief negotiator on the trade deal, as well as its U.S.-Canada predecessor, told Politico at the time, "If the pipeline is actually vetoed on so-called environmental grounds, I think there is a very strong case for a NAFTA challenge."
But would suing the government under NAFTA work? It's unlikely.
The Canadian Press continues:
The U.S. government has a 13-0 record in NAFTA cases. A suit would likely fail, cost the company a few million dollars, and possibly antagonize the U.S. government, said David Gantz, who was been a panelist on NAFTA cases and who teaches trade law at the University of Arizona.
....But another expert said the company might as well try. She said a recent decision against the Canadian government in the Bilcon case involving a Nova Scotia quarry could give TransCanada some hope.
"Why not? And see where it goes," said Debra Steger[.]
Another option on TransCanada's radar is immediately filing another permit application with the U.S. State Department ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a corporate-friendly agreement between the U.S. and 12 Pacific Rim nations described as "NAFTA on steroids," have cautioned against including an ISDS mechanism in the still-pending deal.
"Given NAFTA's record of damage, it is equal parts disgusting and infuriating that now President Barack Obama has joined the corporate Pinocchios who lied about NAFTA in recycling similar claims to try to sell the [TPP]," Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said in February.
The project source told the Canadian Press that whenever the announcement comes, TransCanada will "let it cool for a while. And then we'd have this more vigorous discussion."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular