|
"A week is a long time in politics," or so the saying goes. There was a time when that was less true of trade negotiations. They often seemed to move at a snail's pace or slower. No longer. Today's pace in dizzying. A week is a long time in a trade negotiation--some of them--and a month is an eternity. In the comment section below, we'll look at some of the developments of this past month in the U.S.-China trade tussle. First, though, let's consider where things stood when
Josh Kallmer participated in the GBD event on the topic
Searching for Reciprocity: Section 301 and the Future of U.S. China Trade.
Uppermost in just about everyone's mind then was the report USTR had issued on March 22. The Title of that was
Findings Of The Investigation Into China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The report had been followed by threats and counter-threats of retaliatory tariffs, first against $50 billion of China's exports to the United States and then against $150 billion.
Mr. Kallmer is the Senior Vice President for Global Policy at the Information Technology Industry Council (IT). The council, a trade association, represents "more than 60 of the world's most innovative companies." In short, ITI's members are directly affected by the policies that were the subject of the USTR report, and Mr. Kallmer and his members welcomed the investigation. He put it this way:
When this [investigation] came about in the summer [of 2017], we welcomed it. We supported it. We agreed with Ambassador Lighthizer's formulation of the need to redefine the relationship between the United States and China. ... We often refer to China as having enacted or woven a tapestry of measures that... . You know, some are written, some are not. Some are formal, some are informal. Collectively, they have the effect of making it just extraordinarily difficult for non-Chinese companies to do business in China. And they are against the rules.
In short, ITI supported the launch of USTR's investigation into China policies and practices on intellectual property and technology transfer, and they are not quarreling with the conclusions. What they question is the use of retaliatory tariffs as a remedy. In their view, coordinated international pressure would be a better route to follow. Again, Mr. Kallmer:
In our view that means, fundamentally, not doing things as the United States alone. The United States is, obviously, significant, but, without working together in a fairly concerted action with the EU and Japan and other like-minded economies, the United States is unlikely to be able to build the kind of moral, legal and other kinds of pressure necessary to bring about change in behavior.
|
