[CTC] Lighthizer at APEC: defending U.S. market against unfair trade is not protectionism

[Dolan, Mike]

As the definition of 'protectionism' migrates, one of the contentious issues at APEC was the U.S. delegation’s insistence on including 'fair' in addition to free trade in the 'ununified' joint statement.
MFD :: IBT :: USA



IUST Daily News
Lighthizer, at APEC, says defending U.S. market against unfair trade is not protectionism
May 21, 2017

HANOI -- U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, at his first public appearance here during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation trade ministers meeting, said the U.S. defending its own market against unfair trade practices should not be confused with protectionism -- the definition of which, he claims, “is sort of migrating.”



“Our view in this administration is we can take action to stop unfair trade in the United States market. And the question again becomes ‘what steps can be taken to really lead to free trade?’ And to the extent those steps are confused with protectionism, we find that unfortunate,” Lighthizer said at the closing press conference of the APEC meeting on May 21.



“So our view is we want free trade, we want fair trade, we want a system that leads to greater market efficiency throughout the world,” he continued. “That’s really the underlying objective of organizations like this and the WTO and others.”



Lighthizer, who was responding to a question about whether the U.S. is committed to fighting protectionism, said achieving greater market efficiency “is in all of our interests,” but added that the question is “what do you do to get there?”



For the U.S., he said, “it is defending against unfair trade in our own market and taking steps that we can take to try to discourage non-economic capacity all around the world. And to reduce barriers around the world.”



Vietnam’s Industry and Trade Minister Tran Tuan Anh, the chair of this year’s APEC trade ministers meeting, touted the “very positive outcomes” of the two-day meetings but also acknowledged the differences among the individual countries’ approaches.



“Although in the discussions on the values topics of APEC cooperation there might be differences in the opinions and the approaches and also the specific solutions, but overall the MRT23 have shown the great efforts by the ministers responsible for trade of APEC economies,” Anh said in response to the same question.



“And that is why by the end of the meeting, all members in general have reached consensus on the outcome of the MRT, including the statement of the chair. This will help give directions to the specific actions -- will help improve and complete the rules-based multilateral trading system at the WTO.”



Following APEC trade ministers meetings, officials typically develop a joint statement that is subject to negotiation and must be approved by every participating economy. However, the chair statement put out by Anh<http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Sectoral-Ministerial-Meetings/Trade/2017_trade/chair> after this meeting was not negotiated by the trade officials. Instead, it says that “taking into account the diverse inputs presented and discussed at the meeting, the Chair presents the following ununified but prevailing views of APEC economies.”



Among those “ununified issues,” sources said, were support for the multilateral trading system and a pledge against protectionism, which they said was not agreed to by the U.S., as well as the U.S. delegation’s insistence on including “fair” in addition to free trade.



China, these sources said, lamented a lack of support for inclusion of language calling Beijing a market economy, and other nations were reluctant to endorse language touting China’s One Belt One Road initiative, as well as China’s level of support for the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP).



Those sources said negotiations among the participating economies on language for the statement did not lead to an outcome before the final press conference on May 21, leaving the ministers with no joint statement.



Instead, they published a document outlining a list of priorities<http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Sectoral-Ministerial-Meetings/Trade/2017_trade> under the APEC Viet Nam 2017 theme, “Creating New Dynamism, Fostering a Shared Future,” and “identified” a set of actions.



The chair statement supports the multilateral trading system and reaffirms the importance of the World Trade Organization’s “trade monitoring work, which is essential to the functioning of the multilateral trading system, by achieving greater transparency in, and understanding of the trade policies and practices of Members.”



“We reaffirm our commitment to keep our markets open and to fight against all forms of protectionism by reaffirming our pledge against protectionism through a standstill commitment that we agreed to extend until the end of 2020 and to roll back protectionist and trade-distorting measures,” it continues. “At the same time, we need to ensure a level playing field in order to enjoy the benefits of trade.”



Language on the multilateral trading system and protectionism, however, was not included in the ministers’ communiqué on actions.



Lighthizer, in a May 21 statement following the meeting<https://insidetrade.com/sites/insidetrade.com/files/documents/may2017/USTR%20APEC%20statement.pdf>, said it was “important” to him to attend APEC and “to reaffirm the President’s strong commitment to promoting bilateral free and fair trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region.”



“APEC provides a great opportunity to focus energy on the barriers to its stated objective of free and open trade – a goal that cannot be met without tackling trade-distorting measures that have led to massive U.S. trade imbalances in the region,” he said, adding that he looked “forward to working with our trade partners to expand U.S. export market access and address persistent unfair trade practices.”



A readout of Lighthizer’s meeting with Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry Hiroshige Seko said the two officials “agreed to promote mutually beneficial trade, fight trade barriers and trade distorting measures, foster economic growth, and help establish high standards. In particular, both sides agreed to strengthen cooperation to address common concerns with respect to unfair trade practices utilized by third-countries.”



Background information on APEC attached to Lighthizer’s statement says the U.S. goods trade deficit with APEC economies was $576 billion in 2016 and adds that “APEC provides an opportunity for the U.S. to address this trade deficit by engaging trade partners to expand market access for U.S. exports and addressing unfair trade practices.”



During the final press conference in Hanoi on May 21, Lighthizer defended the U.S. preference for bilateral agreements over multilateral or regional ones -- such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- but emphasized that the United States was still planning to engage with countries in the Asia-Pacific.



The USTR at the press conference touted APEC for doing “an enormous amount of good work: It helps develop a consensus against unfair trade and growing trade” -- which, he said, the U.S. is “very committed to.”



Some ministers told Inside U.S. Trade in interviews they were relieved not only to finally have a U.S. trade official in place but also by Lighthizer’s approach to dealing with the region, which New Zealand’s trade minister Todd McClay called “easing.”



“What I take from his presence here is that after a few months of less certainty I now have a counterpart that I can engage with and talk to directly, and that’s really important both in building a relationship and talking about the role the U.S. has shown as far as leadership is concerned on trade,” he said.



Australian trade minister Steven Ciobo had a similar take -- stressing the importance of clarity, which could increase now that the USTR is in office.

“I think in the Asia-Pacific there’s been question marks about what the new administration’s policy is going to be vis-a-vis engaging with the region,” Ciobo told Inside U.S. Trade on May 21.



“And USTR Lighthizer’s contribution has been to bring a steadfast U.S. engagement in the region -- I think that’s very positive. The fact that we’re all going to have a little more clarity and certainty is a big positive.” -- Jenny Leonard (jleonard at iwpnews.com<mailto:jleonard at iwpnews.com>)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.citizenstrade.org/pipermail/ctcfield-citizenstrade.org/attachments/20170521/4c92ae2d/attachment.htm>