• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

WTO declares US LAW "Not Compliant" "Illegal&

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
GENEVA - The World Trade Organization on Friday approved stiff sanctions on a wide range of American exports intended to punish the United States for failing to repeal what it considers protectionist legislation, a trade diplomat said.

"It's been approved," said Amina C. Mohamed, Kenyan ambassador to the WTO and chairwoman of the organization's dispute settlement body.

The European Union and other plaintiffs sought formal WTO authorization to retaliate by imposing new duties against various U.S. products. Among the potential targets are cod, textiles, glassware, mobile homes and apples.

The WTO dispute settlement body had been scheduled to take the action Wednesday, but U.S. trade diplomats held last-minute talks with counterparts from the European Union and countries including Canada and India.

Although U.S. officials declined comment, the move was believed to have followed wrangling after Washington requested fine-tuning of documents submitted to the WTO.

The 2000 law, named for Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., was written with the steel industry in mind. It was ruled illegal two years ago by the 148-nation WTO - which referees global commerce - following a complaint spearheaded by the EU.

The contested law allows American companies to receive proceeds from duties levied on foreign rivals for alleged "dumping" - selling goods at below-market prices, making it impossible for American producers to compete.

The WTO backed claims that the amendment breaks trade laws by punishing exporters to the United States twice because they are first fined, and then those fines are passed on to their competitors.

In August, a WTO arbitrator approved penalties of up to 72 percent of the money collected from foreign exporters and handed to American companies and said the winners in the case should submit lists of potential targets. Under WTO rules, however, formal authorization must come from the dispute settlement body.

The EU was joined in its complaint by seven other countries: Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, India and Chile.

Only the EU, Japan, South Korea and India have so far submitted lists, but all except Chile requested formal authorization to retaliate - and Canada has said it is pondering which products to target.

On Tuesday, new EU trade chief Peter Mandelson said the sanctions could be applied early next year.

Their value has yet to be determined, but trade officials have said they could amount to more than $150 million a year - a tiny sum in comparison with the $2 billion in sanctions the EU threatened in its successful bid to force the United States to lift illegal tariffs on foreign steel last year.

Earlier this month, then-EU trade spokeswoman Arancha Gonzalez said the target list included "vocal U.S. sectors that could help Congress focus its mind on compliance."

Other products on the EU list include heavy machinery made by companies such as Caterpillar Inc., which is based in Illinois, the home state of House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

On Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador Linnet Deily told the WTO that the Bush administration was working with Congress to bring the law into line with the global body's rules.

Source: Associated Press/AP Online
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Associated Press
Update 12: WTO OKs U.S. Sanctions Over Dumping Rules
08.31.2004, 02:38 PM

The World Trade Organization authorized the European Union and seven other leading U.S. trading partners Tuesday to impose more than $150 million worth of sanctions against the United States for failing to repeal anti-dumping rules deemed illegal by the WTO.

The ruling by the Geneva-based organization allows the complainants to fine the United States up to 72 percent of money collected from foreign exporters under the so-called Byrd Amendment.

That legislation, dating from 2000, empowers Washington to hand over to U.S. companies the duties imposed on foreign firms judged to be unfairly dumping cheap goods on the U.S. market. A statement from the eight complainants estimated that money totaled about $240 million last year.

"It is clear that the Byrd Amendment is a WTO-incompatible response to dumping ... and must therefore go," said EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy.

However, the EU and the other complainants - Japan, Brazil, Canada, Chile, India, South Korea and Mexico - indicated they would hold off from imposing sanctions. Instead they are likely to use the threat of retaliation to press the U.S Congress for an early repeal of the legislation.

A joint-statement from all eight said they could "exercise their retaliatory rights, at any time deemed appropriate."

EU and Japanese officials said they hoped quick action by Washington would avoid sanctions.

"Japan strongly hopes the United States will repeal the Byrd Amendment at an early date, so that we can avoid invoking our right to take countermeasures," Japan's economy, trade and industry minister, Shoichi Nakagawa, said in Tokyo.

Nakagawa was quoted by Japan's Kyodo News service as saying that if the United States refuses to repeal the Byrd Amendment, Japan will ask the WTO to approve, "possibly this fall," specific retaliatory measures.

U.S. officials pointed out that the WTO's ruling did not fully meet the requests of the complainants who had sought the right to increase import tariffs on selected U.S. goods by the total amount collected in fines against their exporters in the previous year.

"The arbitrators' determinations fell far short of the amount requested by the complaining parties," U.S. trade spokesman Christopher Padilla said in a statement.

He said the Bush administration would work with Congress to comply with the WTO "in a way that supports American jobs and American workers."

Named for its sponsor, West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, the three-year-old amendment primarily benefited American steel manufacturers. Other recipients include makers of pasta and candles.

The WTO ruled the measure illegal in 2002, backing claims that it punishes exporters to the United States twice because they are fined first, and then those fines are passed on to their competitors.
 

packerland

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Tex-ass
Sandhusker said:
What? A foreign body is overruling a law of the United States Government? Say it isn't so, SH!

The WTO can no more overrule US law than the UN can overrule US law. What they CAN do is authorize other countries to put tarriffs and other sanctions in place when a nation is in violation of treaties they've already agreed to. In this case, the US enacted law that violates the terms of a WTO treaty agreement we signed. Thus, we're not sticking by our word. The WTO can't make us stop. They can impose penalties from duties and tarriffs to fines and sanctions to wholesale trade embargo.

But of course it's far easier to scream 'bout the WTO overruling the US. It sounds better and makes for better press. Nevermind there's not a whiff of truth to it whatsoever. If the US didn't like the terms of the WTO treaty we signed, we should've renegotiated or never signed the thing in the first place. Or do you advocate not standing by our word as a nation?? If you do, I think you might prefer life in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. I hear they have a few farms for sale, cheap.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Dress it up any way you choose, Packerland. What it all boils down to is that we have to answer to a foreign body. We can change the law or pay via penalties or sanctions - doesn't really matter. We still have to submit to a foreign power one way or the other.

What is truly scary is that virtually any law can have an effect on trade and fall under the WTO's juristiction even if that law was enacted with no thought of trade what-so-ever. When our highway safety laws were drawn up, were the lawmakers intentionally tring to inhibit trade with Mexico? The WTO ruled our laws inhibited trade and thus, required action on our part. Now, Mexican trucks are not held to the same degree of safety as ours. Does that make any sense to you, Packerland? Sales trumped safety.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
Dress it up any way you choose, Packerland. What it all boils down to is that we have to answer to a foreign body.

Nonsense. What it boils down to is that any country, including yours, has a duty to live up to the responsibilities agreed upon in trade deals. If you don't like 'em don't sighn 'em. I for one am glad there is a foreigh body to lend some legitimacy to trade dispute resolution. If there were no foreign body it would set the table for some good old fashioned playground bullying to take place.
Looks to me like the options are fairly simple. Quit trading with everybody, or accept the rulings of these "foreign bodies". Seems like they could work in your favour too.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Silver said:
Dress it up any way you choose, Packerland. What it all boils down to is that we have to answer to a foreign body.

Nonsense. What it boils down to is that any country, including yours, has a duty to live up to the responsibilities agreed upon in trade deals. If you don't like 'em don't sighn 'em. I for one am glad there is a foreigh body to lend some legitimacy to trade dispute resolution. If there were no foreign body it would set the table for some good old fashioned playground bullying to take place.
Looks to me like the options are fairly simple. Quit trading with everybody, or accept the rulings of these "foreign bodies". Seems like they could work in your favour too.

So there is just no way that we can trade without having to compromise safety laws, environment protection laws, national sovereignity, etc....?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Stopping the billions and billions in "Foreign Aid" might free up some trade.

The U.S. only gave away $18,999,000,000 in 2004. Hell, they're buying goods from us with our own damn money.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
When our highway safety laws were drawn up, were the lawmakers intentionally tring to inhibit trade with Mexico?

I think the problem with the Mexico trucks was that you were treating them all the same, instead of on a one to one basis.

If a truck from Montana is deemed unsafe, do you restrict all trucks coming out of Montana?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Murgen said:
When our highway safety laws were drawn up, were the lawmakers intentionally tring to inhibit trade with Mexico?

I think the problem with the Mexico trucks was that you were treating them all the same, instead of on a one to one basis.

If a truck from Montana is deemed unsafe, do you restrict all trucks coming out of Montana?

That wasn't the case, Murgen.
 

packerland

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Tex-ass
Sandhusker said:
Dress it up any way you choose, Packerland. What it all boils down to is that we have to answer to a foreign body. We can change the law or pay via penalties or sanctions - doesn't really matter. We still have to submit to a foreign power one way or the other.

What is truly scary is that virtually any law can have an effect on trade and fall under the WTO's juristiction even if that law was enacted with no thought of trade what-so-ever. When our highway safety laws were drawn up, were the lawmakers intentionally tring to inhibit trade with Mexico? The WTO ruled our laws inhibited trade and thus, required action on our part. Now, Mexican trucks are not held to the same degree of safety as ours. Does that make any sense to you, Packerland? Sales trumped safety.

Well there's the other alternative. We can go back to the 1920s and isolationism. We can let our standard of living deteriorate and go back to factories humming along full of union workers making cotton shirts and dresses etc at $9.00 an hour. We can pay $35 for that $3 Froot-of-the-Loom cotton T-shirt we now buy at K-mart.

Remember something. We CAN withdraw from the WTO. We can also effectively close the world to US exports completely. It ain't 1965 anymore. The world doesn't need US exports as it did before. The PAX Americana is over and if we intend to thrive as a country we have to learn how to adapt and overcome, not withdraw and isolate.

As for the Mexican truck issue, cite your source please and provide a link to the relevant case. Are you saying we are not permitted to pull an unsafe vehicle off the road if the license plates are Mexican? Or are you saying that we no longer can legislate requirements for Mexican trucks entering the US? The first I have an issue with, the second I don't. Please provide background as I'm not familiar with the issue.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Analysis: Mexican trucks still an issue


By Phil Magers
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL


Dallas, TX, Mar. 1 (UPI) -- U.S. environmental officials are worried about the impact Mexican trucks may have on air quality in border states if they are granted approval under the North American Free Trade Agreement to drive deeper into the United States.


Officials are seeking more information from environmental studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and waiting for results from tests state and federal officials plan later this month in Nogales, Ariz.

Mexican trucks have been controversial since NAFTA was adopted more than a decade ago. U.S. officials have demanded safety inspections in Mexico before the trucks enter the United States, and there are also pollution concerns.

Under a 1982 agreement Mexican trucks have been restricted to a 20-mile buffer on the U.S. side of the border, but that could change someday. Negotiations that could open the rest of America's highways to the heavy haulers are currently stalemated.

The latest hang-up has been Mexico's reluctance to allow U.S. safety inspectors to check trucks on its side of the border. U.S. officials want Mexican and U.S. trucking companies to live up to the same safety standards.

Nearly 700 Mexican trucking companies have applied for authority to operate about 4,000 vehicles on U.S. roadways as of last September, according to the Arizona Republic. This is up from 232 carriers and 1,400 vehicles in March 2003.

Although the talk is often about safety, environmental officials in major metropolitan areas near the border, such as San Antonio, are worried about the pollution that Mexican trucks could bring into their areas.

Renee Green, Bexar County's director of environmental services, is worried that Mexican truckers will use dirty diesel fuel until they have to refill in Texas with cleaner-burning fuel, thus adding to pollution in the area.

"The one major metropolitan area in Texas getting emissions from dirty Mexican fuel is San Antonio," she said, because the city is closer to the border than Houston or Dallas.

After Oct. 1, 2005, truckers in the United States will have to fill up with the new low-sulfur diesel fuel, which is less polluting. Mexican truckers would probably fill up in Mexico with the cheaper fuel before entering Texas, she said.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
I don't understand, I thought we could demand they live up to our standards trucking, or whatever as long as we didn't demand more than what we do. The Mexican trucks do not have a requirement of log hours on their drivers like we do.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Best of luck to you packerland!

I sure appreciate someone else stepping in to rattle sabors with these import blamers.

You will never get these "doomsday profits" to see beyond what we might give up in a trade agreement.

They cannot think in terms what we gain vs. what we might give up. All they can focus on is what we might give up. That's the way the blaming, conspiring mind is programed.

It's kind of like their "supply and supply" theories on market fundamentals????

In their conspiring minds all you do in a trade arrangement is give things up. Like typical narrow minded liberal democrats they think they are saving the world by pointing out what we might give up and are simply too ignorant to acknowledge any gain.

You can show them seven years of an average $1.3 "BILLION" dollar surplus in the combined trade of beef, live cattle, beef variety meats, and hides from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce - Bureau of Census prior to the Canadian border closing and the loss of our export markets. It means nothing to these import blamers.

They simply need someone or something to blame and unfortunately they have to be continually beat down with the facts.

Blamer's track record:

Dumping case against Canada - LOSS
Pickett vs. ibp - LOSS
Checkoff constitutionality - LOSS
Canadian border - EVENTUAL LOSS


Keep slapping these import blamers around with the facts that they cannot handle packerland, I appreciate a relief pitcher now and then.


~SH~
 

redriver

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Location
se mb
Mike said:
Stopping the billions and billions in "Foreign Aid" might free up some trade.

The U.S. only gave away $18,999,000,000 in 2004. Hell, they're buying goods from us with our own damn money.

That's the idea, you stupid jerk. A lot of US aid is given with strings attached that the money is used to buy American products. The government funnels your tax dollars to companies owned by their political friends and contributors.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
redriver said:
Mike said:
Stopping the billions and billions in "Foreign Aid" might free up some trade.

The U.S. only gave away $18,999,000,000 in 2004. Hell, they're buying goods from us with our own damn money.

That's the idea, you stupid jerk. A lot of US aid is given with strings attached that the money is used to buy American products. The government funnels your tax dollars to companies owned by their political friends and contributors.

Already knew that you faggot. That's why I posted it. I guess someone as out of touch as you don't know sarcasm when they see it. :roll:
 

redriver

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Location
se mb
Mike, if that's your idea of sarcasm, you ain't very good at it. More likely you're just trying not to look as stupid as you obviously are. That inbreeding is really starting to show.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
redriver said:
Mike, if that's your idea of sarcasm, you ain't very good at it. More likely you're just trying not to look as stupid as you obviously are. That inbreeding is really starting to show.

Redriver, you are a perfect example of what drugs do to your brain :!: Your must resemble a fried egg that has maggots.
 

Latest posts

Top