|
Even from our vantage point on the American side of the border, the logic of Mr. Sheer's question seems compelling. Still, our guess is that Prime Minister Trudeau may want to wait a few days at least before taking any further action, especially since the next few days promise to be so interesting. On Friday and Saturday of this week, June 8 and 9, Mr. Trudeau will host President Trump and the other leaders of the G7 at this year's G7 Summit in Charlevoix, Quebec. America's 232 tariffs are bound to be part of the discussion.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to imagine the tariff portion of this year's G7 talks being particularly productive, but it would be nice if all concerned could lower the rhetoric just a bit. That may be easier said than done. Our own modest suggestion is that all concerned -
Prime Minister Trudeau, President Trump, President Macron, Prime Minister May, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Conte, Prime Minister Abe, and Presidents Juncker and Tusk - all of them would benefit by adhering as closely as possible to the stated purpose of the U.S. tariffs that are so roiling the waters of trade.
That purpose is national security. America's argument is that U.S. national security requires significant productive capacity for both steel and aluminum and that in both sectors imports have weakened the U.S. industry to a degree that poses a threat to U.S. national security. The question was asked and answered in the following steps:
April 19, 2017 - U.S. Commerce Secretary
Wilbur Ross initiates "an investigation to determine the effect of imported steel on national security under Section 232 of ther Trade Expansion Act of 1962."
April 26, 2017 - Secretary Ross initiates a parallel 232 investigation on imports of aluminum.
February 16, 2018 - The Commerce Department's 232 investigations on imports and national security in the steel and aluminum sectors are transmitted to the President and released to the public. The steel report is dated January 11, 2018, and the aluminum report is dated January 17, 2018.
March 23, 2018 - U.S. tariffs are imposed on selected steel and aluminum products - 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum. Certain suppliers are exempted from these tariffs, including the EU, Canada, and Mexico.
May 31, 2018 - The Administration announces that the exemptions for Canada, Mexico and the EU will expire as of June 1, 2018. That is, the tariffs will begin to be imposed on imports from those countries essentially immediately.
May 31, 2018 - Canada announces its retaliation list, which is to enter into force on July 1, 2018.
Now let's turn to the rhetoric-both from the Trump Administration and from others. From around the world, the U.S. is facing the charge that these new tariffs are simply raw protectionism dressed up as national security. That argument will continue to be made for some time, and, in a sense, there is no argument. The tariffs do serve to protect those two industries. The issue to be tested in the WTO and elsewhere is whether the U.S. is within its rights in justifying that action on the basis of national security. As we have watched the headlines, it seems to us that the Administration weakened its case by so clearly using the 232 tariffs as negotiating chips in the NAFTA talks and elsewhere. And, of course, that situation was only exacerbated by U.S. arguments about how protected certain Canadian sectors are. (We are not suggesting that Canada's dairy sector, for example, is not protected, it is, but that is, or should be, completely irrelevant to any U.S. action taken on the grounds of national security.)
Just as unhelpful, however, has been Canada's refusal to talk honestly about the meaning of the 232 provision. To listen to
Prime Minister Trudeau and
Foreign Minister Freeland one would think that the Trump Administration was impugning the reliability of Canada as a military ally. In his remarks on May 31, for example, Prime Minister Trudeau referred to the "pretext" of national security and went on to argue that "For 150 years, Canada has been America's most steadfast ally."
But the essence of the 232 case is not whether Canada or Europe or anyone else is a reliable ally. It is rather whether America's steel and aluminum industries are adequate to meet the challenges of armed conflict. Blurring those two is not helpful.
Finally, and we know this is a bit of a stretch, two lessons from the Second World War come to mind. The first is the lesson of the Maginot Line, the system of French fortifications that was meant to guard against a German invasion. It was effectively meaningless. Strategically, we live in a very different world, but our guess is that the processes of the next big war - the one we hope never happens - will be no more predictable than were those of the past.
The other lesson from that earlier era has to with allies. In January of 1940 Britain and France were close allies. In June of the same year, German forces occupied Paris. Yes, almost any future parallel you might think of would be unimaginable, but that is what wars are about, the unimaginable.
|
