by Xinhua Writer Liu Lina
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (Xinhua) -- The United States government has repeatedly emphasized its responsibilities in tackling the global financial crisis, including the need to fight protectionism.
However, the U.S. government recently has adopted several protectionist policies against China, making its commitments empty promises.
Statistics from China's Commerce Department show the U.S. has filed more than 10 cases of trade remedy investigation against imports from China. And the tension of the trade dispute between the two major economies in the world has escalated during the past week.
On Nov. 3, the U.S. Commerce Department set preliminary countervailing duties (CVD) on imports of steel wire decking from China.
On Nov. 4, the U.S. requested the World Trade Organization (WTO) to establish a dispute settlement panel to rule on China's export restraints on raw materials.
On Nov. 5, the U.S. Commerce Department set preliminary anti-dumping duties on imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from China.
And on Nov. 6, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) conducted three rulings on Chinese products and finally slapped punitive penalties on imports of coated paper and salts from China.
Trade experts say so many cases against China in such a short period is historically rare.
The move of the U.S. government is in striking contrast to its commitments to meet its responsibilities.
From the first round of U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in late July to September's Group of 20 (G20) Summit in Pittsburgh, on bilateral and multilateral talks, the U.S. government has always promised to oppose trade protectionism.
Speaking about the U.S.'s competitiveness, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in August, "the United States may have a large trade imbalance with the rest of the world right now, but the answer is not to reduce our imports. It's to make and sell more products and services that the rest of the world wants to buy".
President Obama vowed earlier this month that the U.S. must break out of a "debilitating gridlock on trade policy" by ending the false choice between a wide-open, free wheeling import policy or fearful, protectionist approach to trade.
He called for a more balanced policy of letting the world know America wanted to compete and trade fairly with any partners.
However, when we look at the recent trade disputes raised by the U.S., it is not difficult to find that the president fell down on his promises.
Moreover, the U.S. changed its rules over some countervailing and anti-dumping cases, which has drawn more public attention.
Commenting on a recent case of coated paper imported from China, Daniel Porter, attorney at law of Winston and Straw LLP, said the U.S. ITC rejected an anti-dumping and countervailing case against China's APP Co. in 2007, ruling APP did not disrupt the U.S. market.
Two years later, the same company received the opposite ruling in a similar case, despite it not having significantly increased its exports to the U.S., he said.
The same company facing two completely different rulings in two similar cases shows that the U.S. trade policy lacks consistency.
"It is just an unfair ruling," Porter said. "The drop of demand in the U.S. coated paper market is because of the shrinking of the press industry during the economic recession, not because of imports."
Porter also noted that the U.S. trade policy had been shifting to a more political approach.
The U.S. is still trapped in the financial crisis and the Obama administration has met with strong resistance when carrying out its health care reform. In addition, the country's unemployment rate hit a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in October.
The American people are also increasingly dissatisfied with the U.S. government.
But the Obama administration does not admit the fact that it is the shrinking demand caused by the financial crisis that leads to the current problems in related industries.
Instead, the U.S. government, while pledging to protect regular trade rules, has bent to these domestic political forces and repeatedly initiated anti-dumping actions against its trade partners. In the end, its actions will hurt both sides.
Disputes can hardly be avoided in international trade but the U.S.'s repeated acts of trade protectionism are obviously way off the scale and are damaging the health of China-U.S. trade.
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal in September called Mr. Obama the President of Protectionism.
Many economists have warned protectionism will only lead to a lose-lose situation for the trade partners involved.
"We hope that our leaders will fight protectionism," David Lampton, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, told Xinhua.
Since the financial crisis broke last year, the U.S. has been flushing the world economy by devaluing the dollar, the still dominant global reserve currency, hoping that the devaluation will help the U.S. economy return to growth.
Critics say it is obviously not a responsible way to save the world economy. On the contrary, other countries have been forced to pay the bill of the trouble made by Wall Street bankers since the weaker dollar has inflated their assets designated in the U.S. currency.
Its actions will certainly act as a drag on the fragile recovery in the world economy.
Trade protectionism not only runs contrary to the world trends of win-win cooperation, but will also undermine U.S. interests.
China has repeatedly asked the U.S. to faithfully observe its commitments made at the G20 summit and consensus reached at the 20th meeting of the China-U.S. Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), by fighting trade protectionism and jointly tackling the financial crisis. The U.S. government should deeply think about these suggestions.
As the International Monetary Fund said recently in a report, the nascent recovery of the world economy needs to be nurtured and the world community must be fully aware of threats, such as protectionism.
Special Report: Global Financial Crisis
