[BlackGriffen]

This article over at the BBC details that the EU is planning to enact retaliatory sanctions for the steel tariffs the Bush administration has enacted. Of particular interest:

The European Commission has drawn up a hit list of US imports worth about $2.2bn a year - including Harley Davidson motorcycles, citrus fruits and textiles - which will be targeted with retaliatory sanctions.
[...]
The hit list is said to have been calculated to inflict maximum pain on states whose support will be crucial to President George W Bush's re-election campaign next year.

How will the US react? Will the voters blame Bush for coddling the steel industry, or jump headlong in to a trade war?

It should be noted that this is one of the tradeoffs of globalization - loss of independence. The US used it very effectively in the past, but it seems that we must now learn that the door swings both ways.

On the domestic politics side, this looks like a loss for Bush no matter how you slice it. If he gives up the tariffs, he loses the steel industry support he needs in the "rust belt" that is shaping up to be a critical battleground in 2004. If he keeps the tariffs, the fallout could be greater than that for him.

Should he be able to maneuver the body politic in to accepting a trade war, will the people still backlash at him for the economic consequences?

Keep in mind that, even though the BBC painted an EU centric picture, Brazil and Japan are in on this, too.

BlackGriffen

[RooneyX]

That's why I'm against Britain entering the EU. We were an Empire, not a good one but we learned from our mistakes and have more respect around the world than any other nation because of our humble and honest attitude (apart from Bush's poodle Blair). Britain should be independent. Otherwise if the EU and the US become enemies, let's face it they already are, then Britain won't have the power to mediate.

The sun never sets on the British Umpire. LOL.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
How will the US react?

Robert Novak (of Joe Wilson fame) stated over a week ago that :

President Bush is ready to roll back his steel tariffs as soon as the World Trade Organization rules against them by rejecting a formal appeal by the U.S. government. (Nov. 2, 2003 )

There's the reaction you're looking for, and it was made known to all those involved well before the WTO decision.

The rest of the stuff - like the threatened sanctions and 'trade war' - it was never going to happen. The EU knows the US will be rolling the tariffs back. They just want to be able to say that they "scared the US" into rolling them back.

[finboy]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
They just want to be able to say that they "scared the US" into rolling them back.

Yep, old news. Everyone go back to your productive activities -- there's nothing to see here. More FUD.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Robert Novak (of Joe Wilson fame) stated over a week ago that :There's the reaction you're looking for, and it was made known to all those involved well before the WTO decision.

The rest of the stuff - like the threatened sanctions and 'trade war' - it was never going to happen. The EU knows the US will be rolling the tariffs back. They just want to be able to say that they "scared the US" into rolling them back.

The situation is far more uncertain than he claims it to be. While it is true many members of the administration are said to be favoring scrapping the tariffs (snow, evans) mcclellan continues to tow the lines spouted before the verdict, and rather defiantly too. Steelworkers, however misguided, continue to heavily lobby congress in favor of them.

[Powerbook]

The U.S. surrenders to an international body!!! My man, that's a...

* S M A C K D O W N ! *

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
The situation is far more uncertain than he claims it to be.

How do you know? Are you in meetings with the administration - or in contact with a "senior administration official" - regarding this policy?

While it is true many members of the administration are said to be favoring scrapping the tariffs (snow, evans) mcclellan continues to tow the lines spouted before the verdict, and rather defiantly too. Steelworkers, however misguided, continue to heavily lobby congress in favor of them.

If indeed he inends to roll back the tariffs, it would only seem prudent to not do so without putting up a fight. With all due respect to our steelworkers, and with their interests in mind, Bush cannot appear to just roll over.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
[B]How do you know? Are you in meetings with the administration - or in contact with a "senior administration official" - regarding this policy?

Uh, I would ask you, why you would rely solely on one columnist who seems so certain. My position is based on mutiple news articles out this morning from such publications as the Wall Street Journal.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Uh, I would ask you, why you would rely solely on one columnist who seems so certain. My position is based on mutiple news articles out this morning from such publications as the Wall Street Journal.

Because that columnist (who is well known for his White House connections and for speaking on and off the record with senior administration officials) wrote of the Bush decision over a week ago - well before the WTO decision, all this hoopla, and this mornings' newspapers.

The policy decision to roll back the tariffs, which was pending the widely anticipated WTO decision, has already been made. What we're seeing now is good, old fashioned political positioning.

[nvaughan3]

I'll leave the mind reading to miss cleo and rely on good old fashioned reporting right now.

I guess your article is wrong since it says as soon as the WTO rejects the tariffs they will be rolled back?

Chicago Tribune's lead paragraph: "President bush may leave in place the tariffs he imposed on imported steel even though the WTO on monday ruled those levies violate international trade regulations"

My point is that what will happen is far from certain right now, which is what the sun-times is erroneosly potraying the situation as.

ps. on the subject on chicago columnists, RIP Kup.

[gadster]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Robert Novak (of Joe Wilson fame) stated over a week ago that :There's the reaction you're looking for, and it was made known to all those involved well before the WTO decision.

The rest of the stuff - like the threatened sanctions and 'trade war' - it was never going to happen. The EU knows the US will be rolling the tariffs back. They just want to be able to say that they "scared the US" into rolling them back.

So Blair is playing some game with the public with this? Is he misleading the parliament?

From a cursory Google:
"Wed 12 Nov 2003
1:34pm (UK)
Blair Tells US to Drop Illegal Steel Tariffs

By Joe Churcher, Chief Parliamentary Reporter, PA News

The US must drop illegal steel tariffs, the Prime Minister demanded today ahead of high-level talks on the issue.

He said the American administration should accept a ruling by the World Trade Organisation � and give a kick-start to vital global trade negotiations in the process."


And these other blokes are in on your "scared the US" act too?

"Nov. 11, 2003, 11:53 PM
Rivals threaten retaliation if U.S. maintains steel tariffs
Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- A chorus of steel exporting-nations from Japan and China to Norway and the European Union urged the United States to scrap its heavy duties on steel Tuesday in compliance with a World Trade Organization ruling or face retaliatory tariffs on a broad array of American exports."

So you, spacefreak, contend that that the admin will just ditch the tariffs? If so, when? You seem to know so much about the neocon/republican agenda, surely you should be able to enlighten us?

So much for free trade. Only free when it suits you. You are just making yourselves to look even dumber than you really are. Or more sinister.

Again I say, get a CLUE USA, before it's too late. It's easy to annoy people, much harder to win friends. Much harder, especially if they were friends in the first place.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
My point is that what will happen is far from certain right now, which is what the sun-times is erroneosly potraying the situation as.

You have no idea what the situation is. Either do I, but I do know that a respected journalist with prime White House contacts reported that the President and administration have been prepared to roll back the tariffs once the WTO decision was made - a week before both the decision and all this hoopla.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by gadster:
So Blair is playing some game with the public with this? Is he misleading the parliament?

I don't know what sort of political positioning Blair is attempting to achieve. Perhaps he wants to appear to his people to stand up to the US and Bush?

So you, spacefreak, contend that that the admin will just ditch the tariffs? If so, when? You seem to know so much about the neocon/republican agenda, surely you should be able to enlighten us?

The article I referenced above stated that the tariffs will be rolled back soon AFTER the WTO decision, which was just made. I figure the rollbacks will occur in a week or two, after all parties and leaders (domestic and abroad) involved have had a chance to define and spread their political rhetoric.

[nvaughan3]

I'm not sure what the significance of prematurely reporting an already erroneos decision is. My take on the ST article is that if he wanted to account for all the political fluff, he would have done it. He didn't. It's not so certain.

Im done, this is argueing on such a dumb point.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
I'm not sure what the significance of prematurely reporting an already erroneos decision is.

There's nothing erroneous about it, unless the rollbacks don't occur. But his report

My take on the ST article is that if he wanted to account for all the political fluff, he would have done it. He didn't. It's not so certain.

Novak reported over a week ago that "all key policymakers now agree the move has been an economic failure....The steel tariffs are regarded inside the administration as having done more harm than good, both politically and economically. Whatever help they gave the ailing steel industry was overridden by damage to steel-purchasing manufacturers"

Novak reports on the guts of policy-making by high-level officials, and inside-the-beltway activities. Speculating how and why Tony Blair, the EU, the media, etc. will repond to such events is not something Novak does.

[Echelon]

The tariffs definitely need to go. The yanks can't expect others to trade fair if they're helping out one of their industries.

[petehammer]

Keep quoting Novak. He's a good reliable source... oh wait... I'm getting something about... CIA agents...

The leak, in violation of a 1982 federal law that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of a clandestine intelligence officer, is now the center of a criminal investigation that has rattled the White House.

Whoops! Guess he's more of a conservative, White House lapdog than an independent, reliable source. Way to put an operative's life on the line to crush criticism of the war!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Keep quoting Novak. He's a good reliable source... oh wait... I'm getting something about... CIA agents...

You must have missed my posting of: "Robert Novak (of Joe Wilson fame) stated over a week ago that ...." in the 3rd post of this thread.

Regardless, if you want to discredit a journalist, perhaps you should aim at ones whose reports are proved substantively wrong and/or incorrect.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The article I referenced above stated that the tariffs will be rolled back soon AFTER the WTO decision, which was just made. I figure the rollbacks will occur in a week or two, after all parties and leaders (domestic and abroad) involved have had a chance to define and spread their political rhetoric.

It looks like "soon after" the WTO decision meant about 4 weeks of political manuevering in this case.

Bush Lifts 20-Month-Old Steel Tariffs

Facing the threat of a trade war, President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday lifted 20-month-old tariffs on foreign steel, a move that will hurt steelmakers in states critical in next year's election.

Within minutes of the announcement, the 15-nation European Union (news - web sites) announced in Brussels that it was lifting its threat of sanctions on $2.2 billion of U.S. products. "These sanctions ... were there as a tool for compliance," EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy said. "They've complied and the sanctions will disappear."

To soften the blow, the administration announced a beefed-up monitoring program to guard against a sudden flood of foreign steel coming into the country.

Bush said the tariffs had been imposed to give the domestic industry critical time to modernize and to protect jobs.

"These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose, and as a result of changed economic circumstances, it is time to lift them," Bush said in a statement.

The tariffs, covering a wide range of steel products, were originally scheduled to remain in effect for three years, until 2005, to give U.S. steelmakers protection from foreign competition.

The president acted after the European Union and other trading partners threatened to impose billions of dollars in sanctions on a wide range of U.S. products made in states considered to be critical in next year's presidential race.

While those states � ranging from Florida to California � will escape foreign retaliation on their products, other key states, including West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania, are home to domestic steel makers who will now face greater foreign competition.

Bush said the tariffs had enabled U.S. steel companies to compete both at home and globally. He said the administration would continue to monitor foreign steel imports to make sure that U.S. companies are not again faced with unfair foreign competition.

[thunderous_funker]

So how does one spin this 20-month fiasco?

Was he wrong to raise tarriffs in the first place? Or did having the brilliant tarriffs in place for 20 months accomplish the specific policy goals in question?

I don't feel like doing the research right now, but how did those steelworker states vote in the mid-terms? From where I sit, that was the goal of the policy all along. Too bad they can't use it next november.

[voodoo]

[version]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So how does one spin this 20-month fiasco?

Was he wrong to raise tarriffs in the first place? Or did having the brilliant tarriffs in place for 20 months accomplish the specific policy goals in question?

I don't feel like doing the research right now, but how did those steelworker states vote in the mid-terms? From where I sit, that was the goal of the policy all along. Too bad they can't use it next november.

Bush got his nuts kicked, and once the average American realises the impact of this turn around by Bushy brained buffoon boy, he will lose the election, and any respect he might have had, oh wait, has none.

Least the rest of the world can still put up a fight against the US when it tries to dictate to us.