![]() imports is 47 percent higher than the U.S. Overall, the effective IPEF nation tariff rate on U.S. Indian tariffs on imports from the United States are almost three times higher than U.S. markets are already more open to exports from IPEF nations than their markets are to U.S. I want Indonesian cars to be driven in the United States”-implying support for a reduction of U.S. “Without offering market access concessions to signatory countries,” the Indian press asked, “how will the US attract a sufficient critical mass of countries to sign up to IPEF and make significant commitments?” In January, before IPEF was formally launched, South Korea’s then-trade minister, Yeo Han-koo, noted that “traditionally … the most important aspect of this multilateral, bilateral trade agreement was this high level of market access.” And in June, Indonesia’s then-trade minister, Muhammad Lutfi, didn’t pull any punches when he said, “We’re going up the value chain to lithium batteries and electric vehicles. has to offer, is money.” In other words, to thwart China’s mercantilist expansion, Washington must buy the cooperation of the countries in the region most likely be hurt by it.įoreign trade officials and the media voiced the same complaint. has to offer, and the only thing the U.S. International trade expert Bryan Mercurio was even blunter, telling CNBC: “hat the U.S. seeks allies in a new cold war with Russia and China, it does so without a lever that helped win the last one: new economic pacts like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement,” Greg Ip wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “Without including market access-the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers-the framework is unlikely to affect trade flows between the United States and the other 13 participants,” Tori Smith at the American Action Forum commented. trade community has been almost unanimous in condemning IPEF’s lack of market access and tariff reductions from the United States. But having China-a country whose trading practices are hegemonic, thin-skinned, and punitive-as one’s main trading partner is sure to eventually end in tears. IPEF nations may not want to look too far ahead in considering the double-edged sword that is burgeoning Chinese trade and investment. trade policy establishment and IPEF nations realize this, the better off we all will be. market access for geopolitical alignment, and other nations can no longer afford to stay on the sidelines as the United States does the hard work of limiting China’s economic, technological, and foreign-policy aggression alone. The United States can no longer afford to trade U.S. trade policy community agree, arguing that IPEF is a well-meaning but largely hollow effort.īoth are wrong. markets that the latter would have guaranteed. IPEF is a trade partnership, not a formal trade agreement, and foreign nations say what they really want is access to U.S. The Biden administration’s recently announced Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), which aims to strengthen cooperation between the United States and multiple Asian nations on economic, trade, and technology issues, has elicited a fairly consistent response both domestically and internationally: Nice job, but try again.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |