
WTO finds Washington broke trade rules by imposing tariffs on China - xster
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-wto/wto-finds-u-s-tariffs-on-china-breach-trading-rules-idUSKBN2662FG
======
rbecker
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_World_Trade_Organization#Conditions)

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

[3] [https://intrepidsourcing.com/trade-wiki/protectionism-
forms-...](https://intrepidsourcing.com/trade-wiki/protectionism-forms-
purpose-outlook/)

~~~
avmich
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.

~~~
rbecker
> 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.

~~~
avmich
> 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?

~~~
rbecker
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.

~~~
avmich
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.

