The new trade row Washington initiated with Beijing is a sign of
increasing US anxiety over its huge trade deficit. Such a combative
mood will not help solve its problems.
On Friday the US Department of Commerce announced that a
preliminary decision had been made to apply the anti-subsidy law on
some China imports, which means a penalty duty will be slapped on
specific items.
The department said the move is being made to offset the
subsidies the Chinese government has granted to some
manufacturers.
The decision alters a 23-year old US practice of not applying
its duty law to non-market economy countries, including China,
according to Washington's standards.
The rare move, understandably, comes from increasing US concerns
over its huge trade deficit. It is not surprising given the
intensifying pressure on the Bush administration from the
Democrats, who require bolder moves to narrow the US trade
deficit.
The United States often resort to anti-dumping charges to
protect industries battered by the global economy. When business
interests have their say, the US has not hesitated to change
established precedents.
With the latest move, Washington has gone against the consensus
reached by leaders of both countries, which advocates resolving
differences through dialogue.
Labeling China a non-market economy, the United States has
quickly and wrongly labeled all Chinese sectors as
non-market-based. It claims they are supported by government
grants, bailouts or low-interest loans.
As China is improving its market economy, an increasing number
of industries have become market-oriented. They have grown out of
competition, not government subsidy.
The anti-subsidy measures will increase the cost of Chinese
products sold in the US, but will not increase the competitiveness
of US manufacturers. They will continue to operate at a
disadvantage in competition with low-cost Asian rivals.
The higher cost of US manufacturing, together with the country's
block on exports of its high-tech products, with their high value-
added prices, is a fundamental cause of the trade imbalance.
The differential reflects the reality of the division of labor
as the world economy develops, not the so-called unfair subsidy by
the Chinese, or whatever, government.
(China Daily April 2, 2007)