US sides with Russia in WTO national security case against Ukraine
WASHINGTON â" The Trump administration is siding with Russia in a potential landmark case over an issue that threatens to tear the World Trade Organization apart: What actions can countries take in the name of national security, even if it violates their WTO commitments?
The panelâs decision, expected later this year, could be consequential for a number of cases brought against the U.S. over President Donald Trumpâs use of steel and aluminum tariffs.
However, the case involving Russia stems from a different type of action â" namely, transit restrictions that Moscow imposed on Ukraine in January 2016 that cut off key markets in Central Asia and the Caucuses, which Ukrainian exporters can only reach by Russian roads. The move came amid continuing conflict between the two nations over Russiaâs annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and a war in eastern Ukraine thatâs now in its fifth year.
Although the U.S. backs Ukraine in the larger territorial confli ct, both the U.S. and Russia argue the WTO has no right to weigh in on the case Ukraine brought against the transit restrictions.
Thatâs because Moscow says it imposed its restrictions as a national security measure under Article 21 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which allows members to take actions that violate their WTO commitments for purposes of national security.
The U.S. government argues that âthe dispute involving essential security is political in nature and, therefore, beyond the proper authority and competency of the WTO to assess.â
Itâs the same argument the Trump administration is using to justify its steel and aluminum tariffs. Both Washington and Moscow insist Article 21 claims are ânon-justiciableâ â" meaning WTO panels canât rule on any dispute invoking the national security exemption.
In the other words, they argue âas soon as anybody says the word âArticle 21â out loud, the p anel has to stop and go home,â Jennifer Hillman, a former WTO Appellate Body judge, said in a recent speech.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined to comment, but directed to POLITICO to documents on its website explaining its position in the Russia-Ukraine dispute.
âA dispute involving essential security is political in nature and, therefore, beyond the proper authority and competency of the WTO to assess,â the U.S. government said during an oral presentation on the case earlier this year. âThe panel should fulfill its function by noting the invocation of Article 21(b)(iii) in its report to the [WTO Dispute Settlement Body] and make no other findings.â
Some other WTO members, such as Canada, believe countries should at least be required to say why theyâre invoking Article 21. However, Russia and the U.S. counter that the provision is âself-judgingâ â" that is, once a country decides an action is in its national security interests, it doesnât have to explain the decision to other members.
Trumpâs steel and aluminum tariffs come closest to a safeguard action, but that would require the U.S. to compensate other WTO members for lost trade, something Trump didnât want to do.
âThe text of Article 21 contains no requirement for a member to detail reasons or events to invoke the security exception. The text instead provides only that a member âconsidersâ the action necessary for the protection of its essential security interests in time of war or other emergency in international relations,â the U.S. said in another legal brief in the case.
However, Hillman contends the provision isnât as broad as the Trump administration argues, since the text indicates it can only be used in situations involving nuclear weapon materials; trade in implements of war or goods to supply a military establishment; or in the time of war or some âother emergency in international relations.â
In Russiaâs case, the country has been reluctant to admit any military role in Ukraine, so identifying the reason for its national security exception could be awkward for Moscow, she said.
Trump imposed duties on steel and aluminum in March following a pair of investigations that found imports of the two metals threatened to impair national security by weakening the U.S. economy. A rarely used U.S. law known as Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act allows the president to restrict imports in the case of a national security threat, but most commanders in chief have been loathe to use the authority.
Countries responded to Trumpâs trade restrictions both by retaliating against U.S. exports and by challenging the move at the WTO, accusing the U.S. of imposing an illegal trade barrier.
âNobodyâs declaring war on Canada, or saying theyâre an unfriendly neighbor. Theyâre obviously notâ â" U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer
Under WTO rules, countries that want to impose additional duties on imports can do so through a temporary âsafeguardâ action; through countervailing and anti-dumping duty proceedings; or through negotiations with other WTO members. Trumpâs steel and aluminum tariffs come closest to a safeguard action, but that would require the U.S. to compensate other WTO members for lost trade, something Trump didnât want to do.
While the EU, China, Canada, Mexico and others believe the tariffs are illegal, the U.S. makes the same charge against countries that have retaliated.
âInstead of working with us to address a common problem [of global steel and aluminum excess capacity], some of our trading partners have elected to respond with retaliatory tariffs designed to punish American workers, farmers and companies,â U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in statement announcing WTO cases against five trading partners. âThese tariffs appear to breach each WTO memberâs commitments under the WTO agreement.â
Lighthizer repeated that sentiment Thursday during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, where he was challenged to explain how steel and aluminum exports from a longtime ally like Canada pose a threat to national security.
âNobodyâs declaring war on Canada, or saying theyâre an unfriendly neighbor. Theyâre obviously not,â Lighthizer replied. âTheyâre a great ally and certainly one of Americaâs closest friends and closest trading partners. But if you decide that you need to protect an industry, you canât be in a position where th e protection is of no value because everything comes in â¦ from Canada.â
U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to continue the Section 232 auto investigation to keep the option of additional restrictions on the table
That doesnât mean the countries themselves are a national security threat, just their exports, he explained, adding that once the U.S. has decided to restrict imports, it has to ensure thereâs âno hole in the netâ that defeats the purpose of the original action. Still, many close allies are offended by the Trump administrationâs use of the national security argument to keep out their products.
âThis goes against all logic and against all history. We simply cannot accept this,â European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Wednesday, just hours after he and Trump agreed to launch negotiations to red uce trade barriers across the Atlantic. Those talks could lead to removal of the steel and aluminum tariffs and Europeâs retaliatory duties on $3.3 billion of American exports.
But still looming is another probe into whether auto and auto part imports, including from Europe, pose a risk to U.S. national security.
Although Trump agreed to hold off on imposing new tariffs on the EU as long as negotiations are making progress, heâs directed Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to continue the Section 232 auto investigation to keep the option of additional restrictions on the table.
In the meantime, the cases that China, the EU and others have brought against the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs are proceeding at the WTO, as well as the more recent cases brought by the U.S. against the retaliatory tariffs.
A narrow ruling that restricts the right of WTO members to use the exception could reinforce Trumpâs perception.
If WTO judg es get over the first hurdle and decide they can rule in cases invoking Article 21, thereâs a fear they could either decide the case too narrowly or too broadly, a senior European official said last week.
A narrow ruling that restricts the right of WTO members to use the exception could reinforce Trumpâs perception that the rules-based global trading is unfairly tilted against the U.S. and encourage him to disregard its decisions.
A broad ruling, meanwhile, could open the door for countries to use the national security exception every time they want to unilaterally raise duties or take some other action in contravention of their WTO obligations.
The second possibility presents a particularly interesting situation, where countries could potentially invoke the âself-judgingâ Article 21 exception to justify their retaliatory duties on the U.S.
Read this next: Viktor OrbÃ¡n: Commission is EU elite âfailureâ
Log in to access content and manage your profile. If you do not have a login you can register here.Source: Google News Ukraine | Netizen 24 Ukraine