Who Gave America the Power of World Enforcer?
Published in Legal Daily
(China) on 1 March 2012
by (link to original)
(China) on 1 March 2012
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Brian Delsandro.
Edited by Laurie Henneman.
On Feb. 28, President Barack Obama signed an order to establish a trade law enforcement center within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Western critics say this action by the United States is directed at the "unfair trade" policies of important trade partners, and is mainly aimed at China.
The same day, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank, released a report entitled "Enough is Enough: Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism." It accused Beijing of maneuvering to obtain "absolute advantage" for Chinese companies, and petitioned the U.S. government along with its allies to create a "Global Free-Trade Coalition" to crowd out China.
Perhaps the administrative reform that America needs is the formation of an inter-departmental trade enforcement center. However, it is probable that this would create an opportunity, helping the U.S. to prepare for intensifying trade frictions with China. The U.S. has not developed a special trade enforcement center to deal with the precedent set by new developments. The trade friction situation facing China today is obviously very serious.
Americans keep thinking that the U.S. manufacturing sector is the world's most efficient, and can't compete with China's only because of "unfair trade." American politicians repeatedly indoctrinate the electorate: China is using state capitalism to challenge the global trading system, and the U.S. must "fight back."
In fact, the U.S. is a challenger and saboteur of global trade rules. Washington presumably senses that the help the World Trade Organization can provide to American interests is lessening, and that they should make a fresh start. This time the U.S. government will join all of the resources of various departments together, much like clenching five fingers into a fist, ready to punch those they regard as "unfair traders."
However, no matter how powerful America is, it won't be able to spread its own will to become the will of the world. The world will not accept a disregard of the WTO's trade powers. Because if everyone sets up their own trade law enforcement center, and all declare that they are doing what is right and necessary, or pursue self-interests under the banner of the WTO, effectively usurping its powers while using its name, wouldn't world trade be in a state of chaos?
America can't believe that it is the primary importer of the world, just that it has unlimited special powers. In three years at the earliest, or five years at the latest, China will surpass it and become the world's number one primary importer. When the time comes, couldn't China also establish its own trade law enforcement center and "enforce the law" on America as it sees fit?
This is an election year in the U.S., so American politicians waving their fists at foreign nations are especially numerous. The Democratic and Republican parties of the U.S. can not reach a consensus on any issue, however their attitudes on slandering China are consistent. Nationalism is becoming America's spiritual opium in 2012.
America is drunk, and China cannot follow the drunk; we have to stay sober. The volume of bilateral trade between China and the United States is staggering. China exported $320 billion worth of goods to America in 2011, while America imposed sanctions on China that did not surpass $10 billion, a proportion of at most 2-3 percent. Because China is the fastest growing export market for the United States, it doesn't dare have a total showdown with China.
But at the same time it should be noted that because of China and America’s lack of mutual strategic trust; both sides increasingly bolstering their vigilance; and an increase in the politicized risk of future trade issues, if the situation is not handled appropriately bilateral trade issues may derail at any time.
American politicians like to seize on incidents to exaggerate matters, so China's best course is to continue without politics, but instead resolutely accord with WTO rules, engage to completion every trade lawsuit brought on by America, and safeguard the tangible benefits of Chinese companies. Concurrently, China should do a good job of uniting its industries to keep a check on the price pressures of foreign enterprises. This is favorable to the income of Chinese enterprises, and can also reduce the number of anti-dumping investigations brought on them by foreign enterprises.
In any case, we do not have to be intimidated by the so-called enforcement centers established in the United States. America doesn't have all-powerful force; whether China's trade structure is good or bad, Washington does not have the final say. Only the WTO can have judgmental powers. WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy gave China a score of A+ for its performance since entering the organization, which is the highest score.
The same day, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank, released a report entitled "Enough is Enough: Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism." It accused Beijing of maneuvering to obtain "absolute advantage" for Chinese companies, and petitioned the U.S. government along with its allies to create a "Global Free-Trade Coalition" to crowd out China.
Perhaps the administrative reform that America needs is the formation of an inter-departmental trade enforcement center. However, it is probable that this would create an opportunity, helping the U.S. to prepare for intensifying trade frictions with China. The U.S. has not developed a special trade enforcement center to deal with the precedent set by new developments. The trade friction situation facing China today is obviously very serious.
Americans keep thinking that the U.S. manufacturing sector is the world's most efficient, and can't compete with China's only because of "unfair trade." American politicians repeatedly indoctrinate the electorate: China is using state capitalism to challenge the global trading system, and the U.S. must "fight back."
In fact, the U.S. is a challenger and saboteur of global trade rules. Washington presumably senses that the help the World Trade Organization can provide to American interests is lessening, and that they should make a fresh start. This time the U.S. government will join all of the resources of various departments together, much like clenching five fingers into a fist, ready to punch those they regard as "unfair traders."
However, no matter how powerful America is, it won't be able to spread its own will to become the will of the world. The world will not accept a disregard of the WTO's trade powers. Because if everyone sets up their own trade law enforcement center, and all declare that they are doing what is right and necessary, or pursue self-interests under the banner of the WTO, effectively usurping its powers while using its name, wouldn't world trade be in a state of chaos?
America can't believe that it is the primary importer of the world, just that it has unlimited special powers. In three years at the earliest, or five years at the latest, China will surpass it and become the world's number one primary importer. When the time comes, couldn't China also establish its own trade law enforcement center and "enforce the law" on America as it sees fit?
This is an election year in the U.S., so American politicians waving their fists at foreign nations are especially numerous. The Democratic and Republican parties of the U.S. can not reach a consensus on any issue, however their attitudes on slandering China are consistent. Nationalism is becoming America's spiritual opium in 2012.
America is drunk, and China cannot follow the drunk; we have to stay sober. The volume of bilateral trade between China and the United States is staggering. China exported $320 billion worth of goods to America in 2011, while America imposed sanctions on China that did not surpass $10 billion, a proportion of at most 2-3 percent. Because China is the fastest growing export market for the United States, it doesn't dare have a total showdown with China.
But at the same time it should be noted that because of China and America’s lack of mutual strategic trust; both sides increasingly bolstering their vigilance; and an increase in the politicized risk of future trade issues, if the situation is not handled appropriately bilateral trade issues may derail at any time.
American politicians like to seize on incidents to exaggerate matters, so China's best course is to continue without politics, but instead resolutely accord with WTO rules, engage to completion every trade lawsuit brought on by America, and safeguard the tangible benefits of Chinese companies. Concurrently, China should do a good job of uniting its industries to keep a check on the price pressures of foreign enterprises. This is favorable to the income of Chinese enterprises, and can also reduce the number of anti-dumping investigations brought on them by foreign enterprises.
In any case, we do not have to be intimidated by the so-called enforcement centers established in the United States. America doesn't have all-powerful force; whether China's trade structure is good or bad, Washington does not have the final say. Only the WTO can have judgmental powers. WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy gave China a score of A+ for its performance since entering the organization, which is the highest score.