You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International-UN-NGOs
WTO gives ok for sanctions against U.S
2004-11-27
The World Trade Organization granted authorization Friday to the European Union, Japan, Canada, Korea, Mexico, India, and Chile, to slap retaliatory sanctions if the U.S. fails to repeal the Byrd amendment. Washington insiders close to influential members of Congress, however, say it's not likely the Byrd amendment will be repealed soon. Failure by U.S. to act could, say trade diplomats, escalate trade tensions with major partners and also sour the atmosphere in the Doha round of liberalization talks. It's estimated U.S. products could be, based on the latest year, subject to punitive tariffs totaling $150 million with Japan and the EU accounting for the largest share with about $78 million and $50 million in damages, respectively. U.S. products on the indicative hit lists of Japan, the EU, Korea, and Canada for example, include, among other: textiles and apparel, cement, base metals, paper, electrical machinery and vehicles, crane lorries, prefabricated buildings, photocopying apparatus, paper products, ceramics, furniture, air conditioning machines, beer whiskies, and fish.

The Byrd amendment, named after its sponsor Sen. Robert Byrd, a powerful West Virginia Democrat, penalizes foreign companies that compete unfairly in the U.S. market by dumping goods -- selling at below cost or fair value -- or receiving subsidies. But the measure was found in violation of global trade rules by a WTO panel in September 2002 and upheld in an appellate ruling in January 2003.
Posted by:Fred

#3  International trade agreements are not something I keep up with, but I suspect there is more to this than the surface issue. The last round of WTO failed completely and there is little prospect of further trade liberalisation under WTO. It looks to me like WTO has served its purpose and is now surplus to requirements. So it is trying to justify its further existence and of course playing to the multilateralist gallery.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-11-27 10:03:42 PM  

#2  The only reason Senator Kleagle probably sponsored it was that they named it after him. Probably had no clue what it meant or what it did.
Posted by: tu3031   2004-11-27 9:32:41 AM  

#1  I thought the Democrats were all for international cooperation and "warm and fuzzy" talk. Do you mean that a "powerful Senator (Democrat)" pushed through legislation that was unilateral? Oh, I forgot, National Security is subject to international tests; trade is unilateral (note opposition to NAFTA).
Posted by: SamL   2004-11-27 9:29:07 AM  

00:00