Latest US protectionism sets dangerous precedent

: 0 Comment(s)Print E-mail Xinhua, March 8, 2012

Adjust font size:

When the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to ensure the government can impose punitive countervailing duties on imports from non-market economy (NME) countries,it sets a dangerous precedent for the world.

The House on Tuesday voted 370 to 39 to pass the measure and sent it to President Barack Obama for his signature before it can become law. The Senate approved the legislation one day earlier.

The speedy congressional action came after a federal court ruled in December that the Department of Commerce did not have the legal authority to impose such duties on goods from NME countries such as China and Vietnam.

The House and the Senate acted soon after the hearing to introduce a bill to remedy the Tariff Act of 1930 and overturn the federal court decision.

Accusing other governments of trade subsidies and resorting to protectionist measures have been old tricks by which the U.S. has made scapegoats of others for domestic woes, but kidnapping a law to justify the practice seems a new tactic.

The problem is the legislation, however just Washington wants to pose it, is inconsistent with WTO rules and even American laws. It will not make sense but only offer insight into the self-interest of the United States.

The self-interest has a history. Back in 2009, when the global financial crisis hit the world worst, President Obama endorsed the "Buy American" provision, implying the prime objective for the United States was to secure its national interests rather than riding through the hardships with the rest of the world.

This time, however, a more urgent threat comes in the fact that the approach may start a bad trend, giving more countries excuses to go down a protectionist path, and thus plunging the world into a trade war.

With economic globalization continuing, a protectionism epidemic will crumble the markets, easily choke an already fragile global recovery and drag every country down.

Meanwhile, the rectified bill, mainly directed at China, signals growing sentiments among the U.S. political and policy elites that China should be confronted over its trade policies.

Their shrill complaints on China's trade in the name of protecting domestic jobs is understandable -- after all, it is a year of presidential election during which China is doomed to be an easy target amid candidates' effort to win votes.

However, accusing China of subsidizing exports seems based more on self-reinforcing ideas than on calmly conceived measuring.

To revive domestic growth, the U.S. government needs practical action besides China-bashing resentment. It must address its economic structural problems and ensure financial stability.

It's not a secret that China and the United States do not always see eye to eye on a range of issues. However, as the world's top two economies and with their interests interwoven in more territories, the two countries should adapt to each other for a mutual boom.

As Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has put it, when it comes to China and the United States, dialogue works better than confrontation and cooperation works better than containment.