Routine trade politics
Andrew Sullivan thinks the EU has hit a new low: According to the Guardian, there’s now a proposed plan to use EU punitive tariffs against industries in key marginal states in the next election – in order to help the Democrats. I find the Bush administration’s steel tariffs to be noxious and wrong; but the ...
Andrew Sullivan thinks the EU has hit a new low:
Andrew Sullivan thinks the EU has hit a new low:
According to the Guardian, there’s now a proposed plan to use EU punitive tariffs against industries in key marginal states in the next election – in order to help the Democrats. I find the Bush administration’s steel tariffs to be noxious and wrong; but the idea that foreign governments would attempt to micro-manage retaliation for partisan politics in another country is a new low. Or at least a sign that Bush-hatred has now reached previously sensible European politicians.
Now, I love a good EU-bashing as much as the next guy, but on this occasion I fear Sullivan is overreaching on two fronts. First, the Guardian story makes it clear that the EU is not proposing anything at the moment. Rather, Stephen Byers — a former trade and industry secretary in Tony Blair’s government — sent “a letter to Pascal Lamy, Europe’s top trade negotiator,” suggesting this tactic. So this is not emanating from the Eurocrats. Second, even if this does become official policy, it’s not new. Ever since the WTO came into existence, both the United States and European Union have carefully targeted WTO-approved punitive sanctions against key industries. The hope is that such sanctions mobilize the affected industry into lobbying the government to reverse its policy. The U.S. does this all the time against the EU — for instance, raising tariffs on Parma ham to get the Italian agricultural lobby to force the French agricultuiral lobby into backing down. Sullivan says the proposed policy is Bush-hatred gone mad. However, the quoted section from Byers’ letter to Lamy suggests good-old-fashioned bargaining:
It is clear that steel tariffs were introduced for short-term political advantage to deliver on a promise made by George Bush during the last presidential election campaign in order to gain votes in key swing states like West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan where the steel industry is a major employer. “The EU should now indicate that if President Bush fails to comply with the WTO ruling, then it will impose tariffs targeted at the major sectors of employment in politically sensitive swing states.
Nothing extraordinary to see here, folks — just your typical transatlantic trade spat. Move along.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
