About Us

  • Eyes on Trade is a blog by the staff of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch (GTW) division. GTW aims to promote democracy by challenging corporate globalization, arguing that the current globalization model is neither a random inevitability nor "free trade." Eyes on Trade is a space for interested parties to share information about globalization and trade issues, and in particular for us to share our watchdogging insights with you! GTW director Lori Wallach's initial post explains it all.

Contact

February 07, 2018

New Trade Deficit Tracker

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch launches new Trade Deficit Tracker. Contrary to candidate Donald Trump’s pledge to speedily reduce the U.S. trade deficit, in Trump’s first year in office the goods trade deficit is larger than any time since 2008 and up 5 percent overall even in inflation-controlled terms from last year, with a significant jump in the China trade deficit and a 8 percent increase in the North American Free Trade Agreement deficit. Trump has not exercised his available executive authority to fulfill campaign pledges to limit imports, including those from firms that outsource jobs; label China a currency manipulator; revoke trade agreement waivers on “Buy America” procurement policies that outsource U.S. tax dollars to purchase imports for government use; or limit government contracts to firms that outsource jobs.

The overall 2017 U.S. goods trade deficit in inflation-controlled terms was $796 billion in 2017, up 5.4 percent or $40.9 billion from 2016, which was led by a U.S.-China goods deficit of $375 billion in 2017, up 5.5 percent and $19.5 billion from 2016. The 2017 U.S-NAFTA goods trade deficit was up 7.8 percent or $13.8 billion from 2016.

To document the significant increase in U.S. trade deficits under the Trump administration, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch has launched a new tracker. The tracker visualizes and tracks significant developments related to U.S. trade deficits with NAFTA partners (Canada and Mexico), and China respectively. Click here or on the image below to visit the tracker.

5

www.citizen.org/our-work/globalization-and-trade/trumps-trade-deficit

February 06, 2018

Trade Deficit Up 5 Percent in Trump’s First Year, Raising Stakes for Quick NAFTA Replacement Deal that Stops Outsourcing, China Trade Action

With Trade Policy Unchanged in Trump’s First Year, Outcomes He Attacked Continue

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Contrary to candidate Donald Trump’s pledge to speedily reduce the U.S. trade deficit, in Trump’s first year in office the goods trade deficit is up 5 percent overall from last year, with the China trade deficit larger than last year and a 8 percent increase in the North American Free Trade Agreement deficit. Trump has not exercised his available executive authority to fulfill campaign pledges to limit imports, including those from firms that outsource jobs; label China a currency manipulator; revoke trade agreement waivers on “Buy America” procurement policies that outsource U.S. tax dollars to purchase imports for government use; or limit government contracts to firms that outsource jobs.

“Right now, the same trade policy that Trump attacked ferociously and promised to speedily replace is still in place,” said Lori Wallach. “The first-year Trump jump in the U.S. trade deficit adds urgency to the administration actually securing a NAFTA replacement deal that ends NAFTA’s job outsourcing incentives and implementing a new China trade policy.”

The overall 2017 U.S. goods trade deficit was $796 billion in 2017, up 5.4 percent or $40.9 billion from 2016. The U.S. trade deficit is now larger than at any time since 2008. This was led by a U.S.-China goods deficit of $375 billion in 2017, up 5.5 percent and $19.5 billion from 2016. The 2017 U.S-NAFTA goods trade deficit was up 7.8 percent or $13.8 billion from 2016.

“It’s not surprising that the deficit is up, because in year one there has been a wide gulf between Trump’s fiery trade rhetoric and action. So the same failed trade policy Trump attacked as a candidate is still in place, outsourcing continues and promised actions remains undone,” Wallach said. “The Trump administration has made some good proposals to transform NAFTA, but the corporate lobby is so intent on blocking those changes that it has delayed – and could – derail the whole process. And so far, the administration has not implemented the comprehensive new approach to our China trade policy that is needed.”

China Trade: Trump reversed his pledge to take action on his first day on currency issues and has achieved little since to expand U.S. exports to China or limit Chinese imports here. Nor has he followed through on promised actions to limit Chinese steel and aluminum imports using section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Also outstanding is action on a Section 301 petition on China the administration initiated in mid-2016.

  1

 

U.S.–NAFTA Trade: Between 2011 and 2016, the U.S. goods trade deficit with NAFTA nations declined 11.6 percent, or $23.2 billion (excluding re-exports). This decline has been consistent except for a small 2.9 percent increase in 2014. The U.S. NAFTA goods trade deficit is now mostly manufactured and agricultural goods. Fossil fuels have declined as a share of the total deficit from 82 percent in 1993 before NAFTA to 16 percent in 2016.

   2

January 24, 2018

TPP-11 Countries Announce a Deal — While We Dodged a Bullet on ISDS Expansion Here, Our International Allies Face a Major Fight

Thanks to years of organizing, we in the United States saved ourselves from the corporate-dominated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by ensuring that the controversial deal was universally reviled across party lines and could never gain a majority in Congress.

But it is deeply unfortunate for our international partners that this week the remaining 11 TPP countries — including Canada and Mexico — agreed to move forward the deeply flawed TPP model for their countries in a cynically renamed “Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership.” We know from our years-long, internationally-coordinated TPP campaign that our sisters and brothers in those nations fought against the corporate-rigged TPP model as hard as we did. We stand in solidarity with them as they continue to mobilize to block the implementation of any newly agreed TPP deal in their countries.

While some of the most egregious provisions pushed by Big Pharma that would have further threatened access to life-saving medicines were fortunately set aside (for now) in the revised TPP-11 deal, most of the TPP’s dangerous rules remain intact. It is shocking, for instance, that Canada, Mexico and others apparently agreed to maintain the infamous investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system (with only some minor tweaks), that empowers multinational corporations to attack public interest laws before panels of three corporate lawyers.

We dodged a bullet here in the United States — the TPP would have doubled U.S. exposure to investor-state attacks against U.S. policies by newly empowering more than 1,000 additional corporations in TPP countries, which own more than 9,200 additional subsidiaries in the United States, to launch investor-state cases against the U.S. government.

But, it is beyond perplexing that Canada and Mexico would agree to expand their liability to these ISDS attacks on their laws in the TPP-11. In the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiations, the United States has proposed to radically roll back ISDS, which should be good news for Canada and Mexico, since Canadian and Mexican taxpayers have paid $392 million to mostly U.S. corporations who won ISDS attacks against their public interest laws using NAFTA.

The corporate lobby, which has been doing all it can to block the positive NAFTA proposal to roll back ISDS, is undoubtedly rejoicing that the TPP-11 countries have signaled their willingness to accept expansion of the controversial ISDS system.

But the diverse consensus to end ISDS in NAFTA and elsewhere spans the political spectrum, with stark criticism coming from voices as disparate as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John RobertsReagan-era associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, the pro-free-trade libertarian Cato Institute think tank, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitzunions and environmental groups.

We will continue to push to remove ISDS from NAFTA and support our allies in Canada, Mexico and in the other TPP-11 nations as they fight ISDS expansion.

January 05, 2018

Trade Deficits Up in Trump’s 11 Months in Office; Rather Than Promised Speedy Reduction, 2017 Deficit Will Be Larger Than in 2016

Pressure Mounts for Trump to Deliver on Trade Pledges as Korea Trade Pact Renegotiation Talks Open in D.C. and NAFTA Talks Head to Showdown in Montreal Later This Month

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today’s November trade data release shows the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico is 7.9 percent higher and with China is 5.1 percent higher during the first 11 months of the Trump administration compared to the same period in 2016, spotlighting the gap between President Donald Trump’s campaign pledges to speedily reduce the U.S. trade deficit and the lack of trade policy reforms achieved in his first year. The 2017 11-month China deficit is $352 billion, Mexico is $116 billion and Canada is $59 billion, respectively, compared with $335 billion, $110 billion, and $52 billion, respectively, at the 11-month mark in 2016.

Overall, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) deficit has grown during the first year of the Trump administration after seeing a progressive decline from 2011 to 2016, while the China trade deficit continues its upward trajectory.

“The growing trade deficits and related lost jobs stands in stark contrast to Trump’s promised speedy reduction of our trade deficit by transforming our China trade policy and securing a better NAFTA deal,” said Lori Wallach, director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “The administration has made some good proposals to transform NAFTA, but the corporate lobby’s efforts to block those changes may derail the whole process, and so far the administration has taken no action on China trade at all.”

Since that pact’s implementation in March 2012, U.S. exports to Korea have declined, while U.S. imports from Korea have increased, resulting in a large goods trade deficit increase of 85 percent in the pact’s first five years in effect. Today’s data shows that the U.S.-Korea trade deficit remains higher than before the agreement went into effect.

Trump launched the promised NAFTA renegotiation in August, but U.S. corporate interests have persuaded Canada and Mexico to not engage on U.S. proposals to transform NAFTA in ways that U.S. unions, small businesses and consumer groups have long argued would slow job outsourcing and downward pressure on U.S. wages. As a result, the January 23-28 Montreal round of NAFTA talks has become a pivot point. If Mexico and Canada do not engage, the prospect is heightened that Trump may give notice to withdraw from NAFTA. NAFTA entered its 24th year on Jan. 1, 2018.

With respect to China, Trump reversed his pledge to take action on his first day on currency issues and has achieved little since to expand U.S. exports to China or limit Chinese imports here. Trump also has not exercised his authority to revoke trade agreement waivers on “Buy America” procurement policies that outsource U.S. tax dollars to purchase imported goods for government use. Nor has he followed through on promised actions to limit Chinese steel and aluminum imports using section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Also outstanding is action on a Section 301 petition on China the administration initiated in mid-2016.

U.S. – NAFTA Trade

Between 2011 and 2016, the U.S. goods trade deficit with NAFTA nations declined 11.6 percent, or $23.2 billion. This decline has been consistent except for a small 2.9 percent increase in 2014. During Trump’s first 11 months, however, the U.S. goods trade deficit increased 7.9 percent, or $12.8 billion relative to the same period in 2016. The U.S. NAFTA goods trade deficit is now mostly manufactured and agricultural goods. Fossil fuels have declined as a share of the total deficit from 82 percent in 1993 before NAFTA to 16 percent in 2016.

1

View graphic covering NAFTA trade deficit data over longer timespan.

The full-year trade data (January–December) show a similar trend. After the Great Recession, the NAFTA deficit hit its peak in 2011 but has been decreasing gradually each year, with a small increase in 2014.

   3

 U.S. – China Trade

The U.S. goods trade deficit with China has increased every year since 2009, except for an insubstantial decrease in 2016. Under the Trump presidency, that small deficit reduction has been reversed, and the goods trade deficit is now rising again.

2

View graphic covering U.S.-China trade deficit data over longer timespan.

December 05, 2017

New Trade Data Shows Marked Rise in Deficits During Trump’s First 10 Months, Spotlighting Urgency of Successful NAFTA Renegotiation, Action on China Trade

2017 Trade Deficits With NAFTA Countries and China on Track to Surpass Large 2016 Deficits – Instead of Speedy Deficit Decreases Trump Promised

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Contrary to President Donald Trump’s campaign promises to speedily reduce the U.S. trade deficit, the deficit with Canada and Mexico is 9.4 percent higher and with China 4.1 percent higher during the first 10 months of the Trump administration relative to the same period in 2016, according to the Census Bureau’s goods trade data released today. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) deficit in the first year of the Trump administration is on track to reverse a steady decline from 2011 to 2016 of 11.6 percent, or $23.2 billion, while the China trade deficit looks to resume its steady growth since 2009 after a brief decline in 2016.  

Candidate Donald Trump promised quick action to balance the large and persistent U.S. trade deficits with China and the NAFTA nations. “We have a massive trade deficit with China, a deficit that we have to find a way quickly, and I mean quickly, to balance,he said.

While Trump launched renegotiation of NAFTA in August, he reversed his pledge to take action on his first day in office on China trade and has achieved little since to expand U.S. exports to China or limit Chinese imports here. He also has not exercised his authority to revoke trade agreement waivers on “Buy America” procurement policies that outsource U.S. tax dollars to purchase imported goods for government use. Nor has he followed through on promised actions to limit Chinese steel and aluminum imports using section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

“Candidate Trump slammed our huge trade deficits and related lost jobs and lower wages, and promised a speedy fix, but almost a year into his presidency, no major policies have changed, and now Trump owns trade deficits even larger than last year’s,” said Lori Wallach, director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “The administration has made some good NAFTA renegotiation proposals that could make a difference, but the U.S. corporate lobby is urging Mexico and Canada to block those changes. It’s a mystery why the Commerce Department has not followed through on the China actions it announced earlier. 

U.S. – NAFTA Trade

Between 2011 and 2016, the U.S. goods trade deficit with NAFTA countries declined 11.6 percent, or $23.2 billion. This decline has been consistent except for a small jump in 2014, when the U.S. deficit increased by 2.9 percent. During Trump’s first 10 months, however, the U.S. goods trade deficit has increased 9.4 percent, or $13.6 billion relative to the same period in 2016.  The U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA countries is now mostly composed of manufactured and agricultural goods, while fossil fuels have declined as a share of the total deficit from 82 percent in 1993 before NAFTA to 16 percent in 2016.”

1

Click here for graphic covering NAFTA trade deficit data over longer timespan

The full-year trade data (Jan. – Dec.) show a similar trend. After the Great Recession, the NAFTA deficit hit its peak in 2011, but has been gradually decreasing each year with a small increase in 2014.  3

U.S. – China Trade

The U.S. goods trade deficit with China has been increasing every year since 2009, except for an insubstantial decrease in 2016. Under the Trump presidency, that small deficit reduction has been reversed, and is now rising again.

2

Click here for graphic covering U.S.-China trade deficit data over longer timespan

November 29, 2017

The Peterson Institute Agrees That Trade Agreements, Bilateral or Multilateral, Can Alter the U.S. Trade Deficit

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently released a report asserting that, “Economists generally argue that it is not feasible to use trade agreement provisions as a tool to decrease the deficit because trade imbalances are determined by underlying macroeconomic fundamentals.” Ironically, the scholar they cite in support of that claim has repeatedly said the very opposite.

The CRS report cites a policy brief written by C. Fred Bergsten from the Peterson Institute for International Economics that says most economists argue that reducing the U.S. budget deficit is the most effective, if not only, “policy initiative that would reduce the U.S. current account deficit on a lasting basis.” Bergsten does not provide sources in support of his claim.

In the brief, Bergsten omits a substantial body of literature that illustrates how trade agreements have had substantial effects on U.S. trade deficits. But more perversely, Bergsten himself has claimed that inclusion of certain terms in trade agreements can alter the U.S. trade balance.

Earlier this year, in a piece on renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Bergsten wrote that, “... currency manipulation is an unfair trade practice that can have huge effects on trade flows and trade balances, and it is thus quite appropriate for the administration to address it in their trade negotiations.”

Bergsten co-authored another paper in 2012 suggesting that not only has currency manipulation increased the U.S. trade deficit, but it has also caused substantial job loss in the United States:

This buildup of official assets — mainly through intervention in the foreign exchange markets — keeps the currencies of the interveners substantially undervalued, thus boosting their international competitiveness and trade surpluses. The corresponding trade deficits are spread around the world, but the largest share of the loss centers on the United States, whose trade deficit has increased by $200 billion to $500 billion per year as a result. The United States has lost 1 million to 5 million jobs due to this foreign currency manipulation.

Bergsten points out later in the 2012 paper that adding strong and enforceable currency manipulation provisions in multilateral or bilateral trade agreements could help alleviate this problem.

While a bevy of editorial writers and news reporters often repeat the claim that trade deficits are caused by macro-economic factors, not trade agreements, Bergsten himself has often made the opposite point. This begs the question of why the Congressional Research Service would have as its one source in support of a specious claim an economist who has regularly argued the very opposite.

November 21, 2017

Import Alert: Careful What You Eat During Thanksgiving

Trade Deals Like NAFTA Have Led to a Surge of Imported Food, Threatening Food Safety in America

There’s a good chance that some of the food you will eat during Thanksgiving was produced outside the United States. In fact, about 50 percent of fresh fruit and 94 percent of seafood consumed in the United States is imported. But even though Americans are consuming more imported foods today than ever – largely due to trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – the vast majority is never inspected before it reaches your plate.

Since 1993, U.S. food imports from Mexico and Canada have tripled, increasing from 10.6 million to 32.2 million metric tons. During the same time, U.S. food imports from the rest of the world grew as well, but only at half the rate.

   1

While the average American diet relies more and more on imported food, safety regulations and food inspections have not kept up. Only one percent of most food, including dairy, seafood and fruit, are inspected by federal regulators. Less than ten percent of meat and poultry is inspected.

Yet, “trade” agreement rules, like those in NAFTA, require us to import meat and poultry from any processing facility in any country that is deemed to have “equivalent” safety standards, even if core parts of U.S. food safety requirements are not met. Before NAFTA, only meat and poultry from individual processing plants in Canada and Mexico that met U.S. safety and quality standards – and that were certified as doing so by U.S inspectors – could be sold here. NAFTA not only required us to allow imports produced under the other countries’ differing standards, but required us to accept meat from any and all processing plants in Mexico and Canada that were certified as complying with those countries’ domestic standards, not necessarily U.S. standards.

The non-partisan Government Accountability Office describes the federal oversight of food safety as an area of “high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or most in need of transformation.” Their 2016 report says one of the top obstacles to food safety is that “a substantial and increasing portion of the U.S. food supply is imported, which stretches the federal government’s ability to ensure the safety of these foods.”

Unfortunately, things may get worse. President Trump has proposed a budget cut of $83 million to the food safety programs administered by the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees 80 percent of the U.S. food supply.

Recent polling shows that food safety is one of the top issues voters are concerned about in the ongoing NAFTA renegotiation. That’s why a coalition of labor, environmental, family farm, consumer, and faith organizations representing over 12 million people has demanded that the renegotiated NAFTA require all imported food to meet U.S. safety standards and mandate more robust inspection. Plus, the groups are demanding that a NAFTA replacement restore the country-of-origin labels on meat that were eliminated in 2016 after the Canadian and Mexican governments successfully attacked the popular U.S. policy as an illegal trade barrier.

NAFTA’s food safety rules are a recipe for disaster. So as you sit down to enjoy your Thanksgiving meal, be careful what you eat!

November 16, 2017

News Analysis: Next Round of NAFTA Talks May Bring Renegotiation to an Inflection Point if Canada and Mexico Refuse to Engage on U.S. Proposals

From Lori Wallach, Director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch

Renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) faces a critical juncture as the fifth round of talks officially starts Friday in Mexico City.

At issue is whether Canada and Mexico will engage on a series of proposals to significantly reshape NAFTA that were submitted by the United States during the fourth round of talks in October – and, if they refuse, how the administration will respond. Also at issue if they do engage is what additional proposals the administration will put forward to deal with the abysmal labor standards and wages in Mexico. How these issues play out will greatly affect the fate of NAFTA.

The U.S. proposals from October would reverse some of NAFTA’s incentives to outsource investment and jobs from the United States and are among reforms that Democratic and Republican members of Congress, labor unions and other NAFTA critics spanning the political spectrum have demanded for decades. More than 930,000 U.S. workers have been certified under just one narrow government program as losing their jobs to NAFTA.

The administration has made clear that the choice facing Canada, Mexico and the corporate lobby is either a new approach or no NAFTA. Ironically, the corporate lobby’s strategy increases the likelihood of a no-NAFTA future.

The corporate lobby’s response to the administration’s proposals to eliminate NAFTA job outsourcing incentives suggests that the new reality of a different NAFTA or no NAFTA is being dismissed as a bluff, or that the corporate lobby prefers no NAFTA. Whether a case of magical thinking or ideological rigidity after years of corporate interests dictating U.S. trade policy, the fifth NAFTA renegotiating round will reveal whether the corporate lobby has persuaded the governments of Canada and Mexico to join a game of high-stakes poker that increases the odds of the no NAFTA outcome.

Given that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable, Coalition of Service Industries, PhRMA and other business lobbies have spent decades and hundreds of millions to insert protections and policies unrelated to trade into U.S. “trade” agreements, they may prioritize defending the protections they won. But why associations representing U.S. farmers and ranchers would get on that ideological bandwagon is inexplicable. The Farm Bureau and commodity groups have joined the Chamber in the our-way-or-the-highway approach that paves the way to a no NAFTA outcome. But the agriculture sector is most reliant in sustaining NAFTA and its duty access for U.S. exports.

If the United States were to withdraw from NAFTA, the pact’s implementing legislation would authorize the president to proclaim a reversion of trade terms between the three countries to the Most Favored Nation tariff levels of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Forty-six percent of U.S. tariff lines, 50 percent of Mexican tariff lines and 76 percent of Canadian tariff lines are duty-free under the WTO, and the existing tariffs would be drastically lower than those before NAFTA because the WTO tariff cuts have been fully implemented. The current average WTO Most Favored Nation applied tariffs on a trade-weighted basis for the United States, Mexico and Canada are respectively 2.4, 4.5 and 3.1 percent.

However, agriculture is the outlier: U.S. exports to Mexico, beef, pork, poultry and wheat would face significant tariffs. (Almost all U.S. corn exports to Mexico, by far the largest U.S. agricultural export, would be duty-free. Mexico went duty-free for yellow corn for all WTO countries in 2008, thus 95 percent of U.S. corn exports to Mexico would be duty-free without NAFTA. A large share of U.S. soy exports also would be duty-free under Mexico’s WTO tariff rates.) Just assuming hypothetically that the president withdrew from NAFTA and chose not to revert to duty free treatment for Canada under the 1988 U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which was suspended not terminated when NAFTA was enacted, WTO tariffs for Canada would be significant for U.S. exports to Canada of wheat, barley, dairy and beef. 

That farmers have the most to lose under the no-NAFTA outcome and do not have a dog in the fight over auto-sector rules of origin or foreign investor protections, for instance, makes even more perverse their participation in the Chamber’s dangerous game of trying to shut down any discussion of the U.S. NAFTA restructuring proposals that enjoy wide support outside the corporate lobby groups.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s response to team status quo’s declaration that the proposed reforms are non-starters was to declare: “These changes of course will be opposed by entrenched Washington lobbyists and trade associations.” The corporate lobby has been in a full meltdown since, operating under a premise that somehow rejecting the proposals will make them go away.

In contrast, Lighthizer has raised a tantalizing prospect: a new trade agreement model could rebuild broader consensus for trade expansion, creating a new bipartisan coalition to pass a NAFTA replacement. The proposals that have triggered the corporate hissy fit would further this goal. There is wide support in Congress and among unions, small businesses and consumer groups for the October U.S. proposals to:

  • Eliminate some investor protections that make it cheaper and less risky to move American jobs to low-wage Mexico,
  • Roll back waivers of Buy American and other domestic procurement preferences that outsource U.S. tax dollars rather than reinvesting them to create jobs at home,
  • Tighten the rules of origin so that goods with significant Chinese and other non-NAFTA content would no longer enjoy NAFTA benefits, and
  • Require NAFTA countries to review the agreement every five years to ensure it is meeting desired outcomes and affirmatively agree to extend it.

Assuming that the countries can engage in real negotiations at the fifth round, the next step toward building broad consensus for trade expansion will involve the administration creating proposals to raise labor and environmental standards and wage levels in Mexico. There is no real remedy to NAFTA’s outsourcing incentives unless a new NAFTA raises Mexican wage levels. Canada’s proposal for a new NAFTA labor chapter is much closer to what unions in all three countries seek than the already-rejected Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) labor and environmental standards language that has served as the template for U.S. proposal to date. At the same time, the U.S. administration is exploring what new approach could remedy the clear failings of the labor provisions in past U.S. pacts, a problem made glaringly clear with the recent Central America Free Trade Agreement ruling that persistent, severe labor abuses in Guatemala did not violate the standard U.S. trade-pact labor rules included in that pact.

Also key to attracting large blocs of voters in favor of a revised deal will be not adding the TPP’s extended monopoly protections for pharmaceutical firms or terms rolling back food safety and financial regulation. The administration is inclined to support these terms, but various TPP signatories led by Canada rejected the very provisions last weekend, which derailed efforts to sign a TPP-11 deal.

In an odd role reversal, longtime critics of NAFTA hope Canada and Mexico will engage on the U.S. reform proposals during the fifth round. In contrast, if the NAFTA partners mimic the corporate lobby’s dismissive non-started approach, this round of talks could be the beginning of the end for NAFTA.

Given that low wages and lax environmental standards in Mexico draw firms to relocate production and jobs from the United States, the best outcome for workers in all three countries from the ongoing NAFTA renegotiations is a new agreement that raises standards. Indeed, raising wages in Mexico is essential to reversing American job outsourcing to its southern neighbor, where average manufacturing wages are now 9 percent lower in real terms than before NAFTA. However, because NAFTA includes provisions that explicitly incentivize outsourcing, and almost a million American workers have been certified as losing their jobs to NAFTA, and every week NAFTA helps corporations outsource more middle-class jobs, no NAFTA is better than more years of the current agreement.”

November 02, 2017

Asia Trip Spotlights Chasm Between Trump Campaign Rhetoric on Trade and Action, Raising Political Stakes for Meaningful Deliverables

WASHINGTON, D.C. – With President Donald Trump beleaguered on many fronts, the stakes for delivering on his trade promises are high as his first trip to Asia features the very nations Trump targeted with the heated trade critique that helped him win the presidency. Undoubtedly there will be announcements of “breakthroughs,” so below we offer some indicators to measure the actual trade outcomes.

Trump pledged to make U.S. trade policy “a lot better” for working people, starting with day-one action to reverse the China deficit, renegotiating or ending the “job-killing” Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and reducing the U.S. trade deficit with Japan. But so far, beyond formally burying the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a pact widely acknowledged as already dead for a lack of majority congressional support – Trump has accomplished nothing on the Asia trade front.

The lack of action is especially problematic because many of Trump’s trade critiques – including those raised by Democrats for decades - are correct. Since his election, the situation is getting worse and whether Trump can deliver on his pledges to bring down the trade deficit and create American manufacturing jobs will be  measurable via monthly government trade and jobs data.

  • The latest monthly U.S. goods deficit with China reached $35 billion (August), the largest in nearly two years. The China deficit is on track to be higher in Trump’s first year than in 2016. Absent real changes in China trade policy, Trump cannot deliver on his pledge to bring down the U.S. trade deficit and create American jobs given China typically represents nearly half of the overall U.S. goods and services deficit.
  • After doubling the U.S.-Korea goods trade deficit in its first four years, the Korea FTA is again on track for another large deficit by the end of Trump’s first year in office with the auto industry centered in his politically crucial Midwest states slammed while U.S. farmers have yet to see the promised gains.

Ironically, the trip also spotlights the hollowness of the panicky claims from the corporate lobby. No, Asian nations have not signed an alternative trade deal, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), with China after the TPP’s demise. RCEP is as stuck as ever. No, the TPP did not go forward minus the United States. Expect claims of ‘general agreement’ on that goal on the sidelines of the Asian Pacific Economic Partnership summit in Vietnam. But in fact, the administration’s decision to roll back the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) corporate rights and tribunals in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiations reflects an issue that has bogged down Japan’s efforts to get the remaining 11 countries to enact TPP. No, Trump has not launched a China trade war. Indeed, the promised trade actions on steel and aluminum are mired and the 100-day plan touted this spring proved to be a repackaged list of things China promised the Obama administration.

Some less-than-obvious indicators of concrete action would include:

 CHINA: Will Trump terminate negotiations for a U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) that the Obama administration nearly completed? Or, as China demands, revive this deal that would make it easier to outsource more American jobs to China? China has indicated some “new” trade deals could be in the offing during Trump’s visit. One way to unpack whether these are simply rewarmed promises from the past or real change will be the fate of the China BIT, an expansive treaty started by the Bush administration and almost completed by Obama. The pact, which China is keen to sign, would give Chinese firms broader rights to purchase U.S. firms, land and other assets and newly expose the U.S. government to demands for compensation from Chinese firms empowered to attack U.S. policies in extra-judicial ISDS tribunals. Former Goldman Sachs executive-turned National Economic Council chief Gary Cohn reportedly shut down plans to terminate the China BIT negotiations earlier this year.

Given that the administration is demanding a major roll back of the ISDS provisions in NAFTA, it would be notable if Trump does not shut down the China BIT, which provides special protections to firms that outsource to China and simultaneously would greatly expand U.S. ISDS liability. Because only a small portion of foreign investment in the United States is now covered by ISDS agreements, to date the United States has avoided paying corporations over ISDS claims. But with China continuing to invest aggressively throughout the United States, a BIT with China would greatly increase U.S. liability. According to a soon-to-be-unveiled Public Citizen database on the footprint of Chinese investment here, total investment reached over $45 billion in 2016 including over 40 acquisitions of American assets worth at least $50 million each, a high-water mark for inbound investment. Buyers include large Chinese conglomerates with ties to the government like Dalian Wanda as well as state-owned enterprises like the Chinese sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corporation. Chinese investors have entered U.S. sectors similar to those in which foreign investors have launched the most egregious ISDS cases worldwide such as energy and pharmaceuticals. These 2016 deals include Chinese purchases of over 100 oil wells in Texas and a pharmaceutical distribution center in Kentucky.

KOREA: Will Trump push for changes to the 2012 U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) or will his visit focus only on North Korea? How to peacefully resolve North Korea’s nuclear escalation is a thorny question. What should happen with the Korea FTA is an entirely separate question that is not complicated. Civil society organizations and many Democrats in Congress opposed the U.S.-Korea FTA in 2011 when the deal was before Congress because at its heart are new rights and powers for corporations to raise medicine prices and attack environmental, health and financial stability safeguards and to get duty free access for goods with significant Chinese content.

U.S. exports to Korea actually declined after the pact. U.S. average monthly exports to South Korea have fallen in nine of the 15 U.S. sectors that export the most to South Korea, relative to the year before the FTA. U.S. exports to South Korea of agricultural goods have even fallen 5.4 percent in the first five years of the FTA. As with most other U.S. FTAs, imports into the United States soared. Thus, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea increased by 85 percent in five years. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea is once again deteriorating as imports from Korea grow faster than U.S. exports to Korea, reaching $2.3 billion in the latest available monthly data (August 2017).

A broad network of Korean civil society organizations, trade unions, public health organizations similarly opposed the U.S.-Korea deal. Opposition Korean parliamentarians raised many of the same concerns over corporate rights and ISDS, financial stability, access to medicines and more.  The deal sparked violent clashes among parliamentarians after parliament was physically barricaded to avoid a vote and then when tear gas was unleashed in the legislative chambers.

JAPAN: Will Japan agree to a bilateral U.S. trade agreement and/or specific measures to reduce what is the third largest bilateral U.S. trade deficit (behind only China)? The U.S.-Japan goods trade deficit was $74 billion in 2016, and Japan has been a permanent fixture on the U.S. Treasury Department’s “monitoring list” for currency manipulation. It is unclear whether Trump can achieve much to address the deficit or the bipartisan call for binding disciplines on currency manipulation, which Japan rejected in the context of the TPP. But, interestingly, the administration’s position on ISDS in NAFTA is thwarting the Abe administration’s efforts to salvage the widely-rejected corporate rights enshrined in the TPP via a “TPP-11” deal. Many TPP countries, including Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, and others, had only accepted the ISDS provisions under extreme duress to make a deal with the United States. But recent comments by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer about the U.S. proposals to radically roll back the ISDS provisions in the context of the NAFTA renegotiations has emboldened the opposition to these provisions among the TPP-11 nations. Lighthizer’s explanation of why investors do not need ISDS were widely circulated in Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere.

The New Zealand government, for instance, had been supporting Abe’s efforts to salvage the TPP with minimal changes, but New Zealand’s recently elected new Prime Minister Jacinda Arden, announced this week that her government would “do our utmost to amend the ISDS provisions of the TPP” and that her Cabinet has “instructed trade negotiation officials to oppose ISDS in any future free trade agreements.” Adding this bombshell to the reported 50 requests by the TPP-11 countries to freeze or amend the deal’s clauses, including shelving intellectual property provisions on pharmaceutical data, the prospects for a TPP-11 deal in Vietnam are diminishing.  Even in Japan itself, the political foundation within Abe’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is on much shakier ground for a TPP-11 deal.  Koya Nishikawa, a former agriculture minister and LDP leader who was key in delivering needed support from the powerful farm caucus for the TPP, recently lost his seat in the Japanese Diet.  Without Nishikawa, Japan’s already skeptical agricultural sector may not be supportive of a TPP deal.

  • On TPP-11 dynamics: Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland, kelsey@auckland.ac.nz;
  • English-speaking expert from Japanese civil society on TPP-11 and Japan’s political dynamics surrounding trade: Shoko Uchida, Director, Pacific Asia Resource Center, kokusai@parc-jp.org

October 26, 2017

In Epic WTO v. Flipper Case, Trade Organization Ruling in Favor of U.S. Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling Program May Reflect Concerns About Trump Criticisms of WTO

U.S. Gutted Ban on Dolphin-Deadly Tuna After 1991 Trade Case; Today’s Ruling Means U.S. Dodges $163 Million in Sanctions for Voluntary Labels That Replaced Ban – But Mexico Can Appeal Decision

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After two decades of successful trade attacks that led to the gutting of a U.S. ban on tuna caught in a manner that harms dolphins, today’s World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling was a welcome if unexpected shift that may reflect the institution’s response to intensive pressure by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to reform the WTO’s dispute resolution process and President Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw from the body, Public Citizen said.

At issue in today’s ruling are voluntary labels that provide consumers with information to enable them to choose dolphin-safe tuna. The labels were put in place after the U.S. eliminated its ban on dolphin-deadly tuna after losing previous WTO cases. Millions in American taxpayer funds have been spent defending attack after attack on dolphin protections at the WTO.

“The WTO is a political institution, so this ruling may be motivated by a sense of self-preservation, given that the administration has spotlighted how WTO tribunals order countries to gut domestic policies based on unaccountable tribunals making up new obligations to which countries never agreed,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “At another politically fraught moment for the WTO shortly after the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, when a ruling against Europe’s ban on asbestos was seen as substantiating protestors’ claims about the body, a surprise reversal also was issued.” 

Today’s ruling is subject to appeal by Mexico. Public Citizen called on the Trump administration and the Mexican government to include language in North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiations explicitly affirming the current U.S. labeling program so as to shut down any future disputes after 25 years of trade-pact attacks on U.S. dolphin-safe labeling policies. The initial 1991 tuna-dolphin case, dubbed GATTzilla v. Flipper, instigated environmental and consumer group engagement on “trade” agreements.

Today’s ruling focused on whether a 2016 strengthening of the enforcement provisions of the U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labeling regulations with respect to countries other than Mexico made the policy compliant with WTO rules. The WTO repeatedly had declared that the policy discriminated against Mexico, and that rules that limited exceptions for policies aimed at conserving natural resources or protecting animal life or health did not apply. Most recently, an April 2017 WTO decision authorized Mexico to impose an annual $163 million in trade sanctions against the United States, concluding that 2013 changes to the policy still did not meet WTO rules. The April ruling set the amount of sanctions Mexico could impose after the WTO ruled against the U.S. labeling program in 2011, upheld that ruling on appeal in 2012, ruled in 2015 that the initial U.S. changes to the policy did meet WTO rules and upheld that decision on appeal.

Today’s decision means that the United States will not immediately face the previously authorized $163 million in annual trade sanctions.

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing trade impasse between the U.S. and Mexico on dolphin-safe tuna that started in 1991. The current round of attacks started in 2008 with the WTO repeatedly ruling against the U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labeling program even though it is strictly voluntary and accessible to Mexican fishing fleets should they opt to use dolphin-safe tuna-fishing methods just as U.S., Ecuadorean and other nations’ fleets do. Tuna that does not meet the dolphin-safe standard still can be sold in the United States without that label.

“To make sure that the attack on dolphin-safe tuna ends once and for all, a formal and final settlement of the case safeguarding the policy must be part of NAFTA renegotiations,” Wallach said.

Short overview and background of the case: 1991-2017  

Recent Posts

Subscribe