Mara Lee

Eight months after it was first announced (see 1708170046), Argentina and the U.S. have hammered out the details of how U.S. pork exports to Argentina will resume, 26 years after that country banned the product. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer announced the agreement on April 13. "This breakthrough is the result of efforts by this Administration to help America’s farmers and ranchers reach new markets and ensure fair trade practices by our international partners," Perdue said in a statement. "Once the people of Argentina get a taste of American pork products after all this time, we’re sure they’ll want more of it." The U.S. estimates volumes could be $10 million a year -- which is one-tenth the size of the Chinese market, where new 15 percent tariffs have been applied to U.S. pork (see 1804020009). The National Pork Producers Council welcomed the news with a statement from President Jim Heimerl.

The World Trade Organization's nearly unanimous rejection of antidumping duties and safeguard duties has hurt the ability of countries to use AD/CV duties and safeguard tariffs, according to Jennifer Hillman, a former member of the WTO appellate body and now Georgetown University law professor. "Well over 50 percent of all WTO disputes have been in trade remedies," Hillman said during a Washington International Trade Association panel on April 13 about the WTO.

India's eligibility for the Generalized System of Preferences is being evaluated after petitions from American dairy interests and medical device manufacturers who complained about Indian trade policies on those products. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which announced the review of three countries on April 12, had mentioned India's pricing controls on knee replacements and stents as a trade irritant in its annual trade report (see 1803300022). The two interest groups have been asking for India's removal from GSP since October 2017 (see 1710190022). India is the top beneficiary of GSP, accounting for $5.6 billion of the program's $21.1 billion in imports last year, according to USTR.

President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that NAFTA negotiations are going great, and while he also said "we're pretty close to a deal," he dismissed talk that the U.S. is pushing to reach a tentative agreement in early May. "It could be three or four weeks, it could be two months it could be five months, I don’t care,” Bloomberg quoted him saying on April 12. “So the narrative of I’m pushing for a deal -- I never push for a deal. I don’t care. In fact, if everybody in this room closed their ears I’d say that I’d rather terminate NAFTA and do a brand new deal but I’m not going to do that because I’d rather everybody to be happy in this room, okay?"

President Donald Trump instructed staff members to explore having the U.S. rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership, during an April 12 meeting on trade with Congress members and governors from farm states. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement: “The best thing the United States can do to push back against Chinese cheating now is to lead the other eleven Pacific nations that believe in free trade and the rule of law. It is good news that today the President directed Larry Kudlow and ... [U.S. Trade Representative Robert] Lighthizer to negotiate U.S. entry into TPP.” Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., called the president's openness to rejoining negotiations encouraging in a tweet after the meeting. However, negotiations are complete on the TPP, as the other 11 countries -- including major trading partners Japan, Canada and Mexico -- have already signed the agreement.

The House Ways and Means Committee grappled with the fact that tariffs might be painful enough for China to change course on its unfair trade practices but that protecting mills and smelters will hurt factories. China's retaliatory tariffs, in turn, will hurt agriculture and chemical exporters. Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said during a hearing on the effects of new tariffs that he wants enforceable trade policies to target bad actors, but said, "at the same time, we must avoid unintended consequences that hurt Americans."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, represents a state that exports lots of soybeans to China but remains critical of the U.S.'s largest trading partner in goods. He said he recently visited five cities in China with Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and other senators. What he saw there convinced him that Chinese officials "will do anything legal or illegal, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical ... to get ahead and stay ahead." He added, "They are very strategic and we're very short-sighted." Grassley, speaking at a Senate Finance trade subcommittee hearing April 11 on access to China's market, said he's one of the only Congress members still in office who voted to allow China full membership in the World Trade Organization. "It hasn't turned out the way I anticipated," he said. "I kind of feel like I should feel sorry for my vote."

A coalition of Canadian unions called Unifor and Public Citizen, a longtime critic of NAFTA, are both circulating petitions in the hopes of pressuring their countries' politicians. On the Canadian petition, Unifor says: "Unions have warned since the deal between Canada, the United States and Mexico came into effect in 1994 that it would hurt working people in all three countries. In the decades since, we have been proven right." An "Agreement in Principle" would commit "us to a deal without knowing the specifics," Unifor said. "We can't let this happen. Add your voice to show Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister Chrystia Freeland that they can't sign another bad trade deal without even knowing what's in it." Public Citizen's petition says that "if we organize ourselves and demand pro-people trade policy from our elected officials then we can win."

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said that a NAFTA agreement in principle is not enough to start the clock toward a ratification vote under Trade Promotion Authority. The law says the earliest Congress can vote to approve or reject the deal is 90 days after the president announces his intention to sign the deal. But if there is any change to Chapter 19, Congress and the public must have a minimum of 180 days to examine it. Either timeline cannot begin just from a press release or memo. "The text needs to be generally ready for the public to be able to review [for that period] before the president can sign it and send it to us," Brady told reporters on April 10.

China says that the U.S. decision to levy 25 percent tariffs on imported steel from some parts of the world, and 10 percent tariffs on aluminum, was not fair and impartial, and also violated World Trade Organization agreements by not treating all nations in the WTO equally with regard to the tariffs. Under WTO rules, countries are not allowed to raise tariffs above bound rates on some countries but not others in most circumstances. The U.S. used the Section 232 national security exemption from that rule, but China dismisses that assertion, and says that these tariffs are safeguards in disguise. Earlier, China asked for consultations on compensation for the safeguard tariffs (see 1803260025), and this latest request for consultations, posted April 10, tackles the legality of the action. China says the U.S. ignored the rules on how to implement safeguard tariffs. Those rules say that a country has to prove a surge in imports is harming or will harm domestic producers. The U.S. has already responded to China's earlier request for consultations by saying that these are not safeguard tariffs.