WTO finds Washington broke trade rules by imposing tariffs on China | Hacker News Reader

WTO finds Washington broke trade rules by imposing tariffs on China

reuters.com

28 pointsxster7 comments

Did the WTO ever rule on China's protectionist practices? The wikipedia page on those reads like a joke [1], and doesn't even mention the forced partnerships, technology transfers, and bureaucratic measures to prevent access to domestic markets [2,3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_World_Trade_Orga...

[2] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/china-protectionist-t...

[3] https://intrepidsourcing.com/trade-wiki/protectionism-forms-...

There is a term "whataboutism" which is applicable here and which is used for negative description.

While China may be more than guilty in their own ways, and even earlier than USA, it's important to stick to the agreement, to avoid them losing any value. If USA can't hold their part, they hardly can expect that from others.

Having that, it's also important to have effective mechanisms in place to deal with breaking agreements, so partners wouldn't have, as the only option, to resort to breaking their part themselves.

In other words, WTO should be better structured to deal with those who broke rules. It should hardly matter if that is Liechtenstein or USA.

> There is a term "whataboutism" which is applicable here and which is used for negative description.

I think it's less whataboutism and more like self-defense. If someone punches you, it's not whataboutism to mention it when discussing why you punched them back. Only in this case, it's your industries that you're defending.

It's a very blinkered perspective to view this only through the lens of adhering to WTO agreements, and elevate adherence to them to some kind of virtue, regardless of what other countries are doing.

Just part of the broader trend.

America failed to build cohesive and stable global institutions after the post-Soviet era.

We spoiled this magical post 1992 golden hour, and now those institutions (WHO, WTO, among others) fail to hold rising powers like China accountable.

Rather than rebuild and reinvigorate those institutions, we turn to nationalism, sectarian politics and isolationism.

That American retrenchment then further weakens those international institutions, hastening their devolution into proxy organizations.

Which the isolationists then use as evidence, to argue for a further reduction in our foreign commitments.

Until the cycle finds a bottom.

> It's a very blinkered perspective to view this only through the lens of adhering to WTO agreements, and elevate adherence to them to some kind of virtue, regardless of what other countries are doing.

Keeping promises is not some kind of virtue?

It is, but it is myopic not to consider other factors. Especially when those promises were given on the condition the other party keep theirs.

"At least we virtuously upheld our promises" is very cold comfort as your industries wither.

I agree, but would prefer to have a mechanism which would protect against misbehavior without going to tit-for-tat. WHO agreements should have been better - and if it's not feasible, it should be known.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com