United States
‘This is the tenth Trade Policy Review of the United States and I would like to thank
Deputy USTR [United States Trade Representative] Ambassador Michael Punke and his
delegation for their constructive engagement in this meeting. I would also like to thank
Ambassador Hiswani Harun of Malaysia for her excellent intervention as the discussant.
The review was based on reports by the WTO Secretariat and the United States
Government, both of which were appreciated by the delegates.
The period since the last Trade Policy Review of the United States in June 2008 has
been dominated by financial crisis and, in 2009, economic recession on a global scale
and a sharp and deep contraction of international trade. Prompt actions by the United
States, through financial and macroeconomic policies to restore liquidity to its financial
system and to boost domestic demand, have made an important contribution to global
economic recovery. Delegations welcomed this, and remarked on the enormous
importance of their trade and investment with the United States for their own economic
growth and development prospects. Those prospects depend on the United States
continuing to play its historical leadership role in fostering a strong, multilateral trading
system, inter alia by maintaining and, if necessary, reinforcing its resistance to protectionist
pressures that could derail global economic recovery, and by helping to bring the Doha
Round to a successful conclusion, particularly its development dimension. Delegations
were encouraged by President Obama’s confirmation of the importance that the United
States attaches to trade – both imports and exports – as vital avenues for economic
growth and recovery and to completing negotiations under the DDA [Doha Development
Agenda].
Delegations welcomed the fact that the United States remains one of the most
transparent and open economies in the world. Import tariffs are low, and a significant
proportion of imports enter the United States duty-free under zero-level MFN [mostfavoured
nation] tariffs or preference programmes. Nonetheless, it was also noted that
significant tariff peaks remain in certain sectors, such as footwear, leather, textiles and
clothing, and in agriculture where there is also a considerable number of non-ad valorem
duties.
Some concerns were expressed about the restrictive effects of non-tariff measures
applied by the United States on imports. Among those widely mentioned were certain
TBT [technical barriers to trade] and SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] measures that
some delegations felt are unduly trade-restrictive. Several delegations encouraged the
United States to make greater use of international standards in this regard.
A number of delegations commented on the importance for trade of policymakers
maintaining a balance between, on the one hand, the understandable need to ensure
physical security at national borders and, on the other hand, the implementation of
measures to facilitate cross-border trade in goods and services. In that context, concerns
were voiced about the significant increase in trade transaction costs that could result
from more intensive border checks as well as measures such as the 10+2 advance
information requirement and 100 per cent container scanning requirement. It was felt
that more extensive reliance on risk-based strategies as well as closer cooperation
between customs authorities have important roles to play in creating the necessary
balance.
Several delegations drew attention to the trade-restrictive impact on their exports of antidumping
and countervailing measures imposed by the United States. It was noted that
the imposition of new trade remedy measures increased in the period under review,
although the number of measures in force is not above the levels experienced in recent
years. Nonetheless, concerns were expressed about procedural aspects of these
measures, such as the continued use of the “zeroing” methodology, as well as the length
of time some individual measures have been kept in place – over thirty years in certain
cases – which some felt made them appear punitive rather than remedial in nature. We
heard this morning a carefully crafted response on this point by Ambassador Punke,
which I found very encouraging.
Several delegations expressed their continued concerns about trade-restrictive and
distorting measures applied to support agricultural production in the United States, even
though it was noted that this support is relatively low compared with some other OECD
[Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries. In addition to tariff
rate quotas and tariff peaks on certain imported products, the 2008 Farm Bill continues
to provide domestic support that is related to prices and, in many cases, to production as
well, which will lead to subsidies rising again automatically as world prices fall from their
current high levels.
On services, delegations repeated concerns they had raised in previous Trade Policy
Reviews of the United States concerning maritime transport restrictions under the Jones
Act, foreign ownership restrictions in air transport, and visa restrictions affecting the
supply of Mode 4 services. Some delegations expressed concerns about the potential
impact of the extensive support provided by the US to its financial services sector on
competitiveness conditions for the sector globally.
Delegations welcomed the strong and prompt response by the United States to boost
domestic demand following the financial crisis. While the extraordinary nature of this
response was fully recognized, a number of delegations commented on the extent to
which certain of its components favour domestic suppliers of goods and services, such
as the “Buy American” requirements attached to government procurement programmes,
and similar measures at the sub-federal level. Several expressed the hope that these
measures will be only temporary and that they will not signal a change in direction of US
trade policy beyond the period needed to implement crisis measures.
Delegations voiced concerns about the potential impact on trade flows of some aspects
of the draft Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act. It was noted by the US
delegation that this act is currently pending before Congress and that the Administration
believes that the goal of consumer safety can be achieved without imposing undue
burdens on foreign manufacturers.
It was noted that the WTO dispute settlement system is vital to maintaining the integrity
and strength of the rules-based trading system, and that the United States has
participated actively and extensively in dispute settlement proceedings as both
complainant and respondent. Many delegations expressed concerns that, in some of
these cases, full implementation of panel or Appellate Body rulings by the United States
remains pending.
Delegations welcomed the United States’ continuation of its preference programmes to
support export growth and diversification in developing and least-developed countries,
such as the GSP [Generalized System of Preferences], the African Growth and
Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Nonetheless, it was noted that
product exclusions and difficulties in meeting rules of origin in these programmes limited,
for some, their potential beneficial impact on exports to the US market. Many welcomed
the United States’ contributions of trade-related development assistance and capacity
building, including through the WTO Global Trust Fund and the Enhanced Integrated
Framework.
The large number of questions tabled during this review indicates clearly the importance
of the United States as a trading partner for most WTO Members. The US delegation is
to be commended for giving comprehensive replies to so many questions with such short
notice and members look forward to receiving the final responses before the end of
October.
In closing, I would like to thank all delegations for this successful review of the trade
policies of the United States.’
