Trade Cases
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/media/k2/items/src/a780705f9825bab88ee0b75f66dad41f.jpg)
Leibowitz: The Party Platforms on Trade
Written by Lewis Leibowitz
August 22, 2020
Trade attorney and Steel Market Update contributor Lewis Leibowitz offers the following update on events in Washington:
Time was we looked with great interest at the deliberations of the party platform committees to see who was the most influential—young vs. old, moderates vs. conservatives vs. progressives, etc.
In this year of the pandemic, the entire nominating process has been turned topsy-turvy. The declining role of the party platform reached a new level, for example, with the adoption this year of the Republican Platform of 2020. It turned out that the platform of 2020 is precisely the same as the platform of 2016. The Platform Committee will not meet this year, due to the pandemic, and therefore the 2016 Platform will be readopted.
The Democratic party did not see it that way. Despite the pandemic, and the almost entirely virtual convention, the Democrats adopted a platform at the end of July.
The platforms cover a multitude of issues, of course; I will, as is my mandate, focus on international trade policy. Reading the Republican Platform of 2016, I noted that a number of issues were not exactly timely, but plenty of them were timely. President Trump was true to the basic themes of the 2016 platform, including proposals for an economy de-coupling from China. The 2016 Platform noted that China had manipulated its currency, excluded U.S. products from government procurement and subsidized Chinese companies “to thwart American imports” into China. “A Republican president will insist on parity in trade and stand ready to implement countervailing duties if other countries refuse to cooperate.”
However, the Republican Platform said in 2016 (and therefore repeats in 2020) that “we look to broaden our trade agreements with countries which share our values and commitment to fairness, along with transparency in our commercial and business practices.” While the NAFTA was replaced this year with a quite similar USMCA, and an agreement with Korea was signed in 2018 (which did not increase any U.S. obligations), other trade agreements have been harder to come by.
On the Democratic side, there was a new platform adopted by the Party last month. The focus is different, but many of the policies are similar. Democrats focus more on labor and less on business; that difference has driven the two parties’ agendas for decades.
The Democratic Platform promises to protect American jobs by focusing on trade deals that protect American workers against unfair foreign competition, including foreign policies that rely “on the abuse of workers.” Again, this is not anything new. However, what is new is that the Democrats make a commitment to no new trade deals “before first investing in American competitiveness at home.” New trade deals, when negotiated, will emphasize “strong and enforceable standards for labor, human rights, and the environment in any future trade agreements, so that they build the American middle class, create jobs, raise wages, and strengthen our communities.” As in the past, these are words we have heard before. If the Democrats are serious about these conditions, the likelihood of new trade deals is not good.
However, the Democrats vow to mobilize “more than half the world’s economy” to stand up to China and negotiate from a position of maximum strength. A tall order without trade agreements to encourage Allied cooperation.
The Democrats sound very much like Republicans (from four years ago, at least) on the rivalry with China. Democrats resolve to protect American workers from unfair Chinese government trade practices. “We will rally friends and allies across the world to push back against China or any other country’s attempts to undermine international norms.” Republicans are concerned with American workers too.
Neither party platform goes into detail about the future of tariffs on steel and aluminum and other trade restrictions on China, or Iran, or other countries. There is no mention of unfair trade actions, nor a commitment to back the World Trade Organization (or to defy it).
In short, the party platforms in many ways sound more alike than different when it comes to trade policy. The policy choices the next administration makes with regard to international trade matters will depend on constituents and voters pressuring the administration, which, whoever wins, will not be constrained to any great degree by the party platforms of the victors.
Because the Republican Platform is literally a holdover from 2016, it does not address the current disputes with allies that make it difficult to agree with them on common action against China. It is obvious that each party will use trade as a lever with friend and foe alike to alter their conduct. Our trading partners will exert similar pressure on us to alter our conduct.
Ironically, both parties have a chance to accomplish new trade initiatives to encourage our allies to take action to put pressure on China and other adversaries, like Russia and Iran. A second Trump administration may need to walk back some of its actions that hurt our traditional allies, while Democrats will need to convince organized labor that such deals are good for them and the country. Both parties will be challenged to make the trade situation work better for the U.S. and our allies.
Getting cooperation from our allies may be a somewhat greater challenge for a Republican administration than a Democratic one, because the Trump administration trade agenda has antagonized traditional allies over the last four years. However, neither party has articulated a plan to get help from our traditional allies to “stand up” to China or other adversaries without making agreements that are a “win-win” proposition for both sides.
Democrats have put organized labor in the driver’s seat on trade policy by holding up on new trade deals that don’t “protect” American jobs, whatever that may mean. Platforms once meant a lot—not so much anymore.
I look forward to sharing ideas with you at the virtual SMU Steel Summit this week.
All the best.
The Law Office of Lewis E. Leibowitz
1400 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 776-1142
Fax: (202) 861-2924
Cell: (202) 250-1551
![Lewis Leibowitz, SMU Contributor](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/lewis-leibowitz-150x150.jpeg)
Lewis Leibowitz
Read more from Lewis LeibowitzLatest in Trade Cases
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/images/Featured_News_Icons/galvanized_coil.png)
Leibowitz: The consequences of a new barrage of trade cases on coated steel
Domestic steel producers and the United Steelworkers (USW) union filed a barrage of trade cases last week. This is hardly news. Ever since the Commerce Department ruled that Vietnam is still treated as a nonmarket economy (NME) for antidumping purposes, many in the business expected new cases on the product that Vietnam excels at—“corrosion-resistant steel.” Nor is it a surprise that these cases roped in nine countries in addition to Vietnam: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, South Africa, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. All these countries rank in the top ten exporters of corrosion-resistant steel to the United States. These petitions are a broadside against coated flat-rolled steel imports.
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/images/Featured_News_Icons/investigate.png)
Coated trade case alleges hefty dumping margins
Domestic mills have alleged substantial dumping margins in the trade case targeting imports of corrosion-resistant steel.
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/images/Featured_News_Icons/fist.png)
US mills file sprawling trade case against coated imports from 10 nations
US mills have filed or soon will file a sprawling trade petition against imports of coated flat-rolled steel from 10 countries. The petition seeks anti-dumping margins against Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the Netherlands, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Taiwan, Australia, and South Africa. It also seeks countervailing duty margins against Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Vietnam. That’s according documents dated Sept. 5 and addressed to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and International Trade Commission (ITC) Secretary Lisa Barton.
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/media/k2/items/src/cbd2ad03f626e665deb71b2742b25bbb.jpg)
Steel Summit 2024: Trade issues abound ahead of election
Trade is always front and center in an election year. And 2024 is no different. There is no shortage of issues, with questions like the sale of U.S. Steel to Japan’s Nippon Steel, potential cracks in the USMCA, and Chinese overcapacity dominating the headlines. But how do you distinguish between issues that might just last until November, and what are the crucial questions that could affect your business for years to come?
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/images/Featured_News_Icons/fist.png)
US senators urge reduction to S. Korean OCTG quota
https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/sherrod-brown-casey-fetterman-biden-administration-level-playing-field-american-octg-industry