Download - FDCL
Download - FDCL
Download - FDCL
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
66<br />
• Thirdly the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on November 10, 2003 167 also declared<br />
US-import tariffs for foreign steel as illicit and again allowed the EU to cross-retaliate<br />
up to an amount of 2.242 billion US-dollars 168 and<br />
• Fourthly the EU on September 22nd – shortly after the “failure” of Cancún – reactivated<br />
the three year old WTO-dispute with the U.S.A. referred to the so-called<br />
1916 US Anti-Dumping Act, in order to also take “punitive or protectory measures”<br />
in this case. 169<br />
After the “failure” of Cancún and after it became clear that the multilateral negotiations<br />
of the WTO could not be brought to an end within the schedule of the Doha<br />
Agenda, the U.S. as well as the EU were increasingly able relax the lip services concerning<br />
a “real multilateralism”, so that an intense activity of bilateral negotiations on<br />
FTAs could start with selected countries of interest for the U.S. 170 and the EU. 171<br />
It is neither a thematic nor a timely coincidence, but a reflection of the competition<br />
between the U.S.A. and Europe in trade-related questions, that the EU, after<br />
the “failure” of Cancún as well as the weakening of Europe in foreign trade due to<br />
the weaker dollar and the strengthening Euro, is planning to activate the retaliatory<br />
measures assigned by the WTO in the case of the “Foreign Sales Companies” as<br />
well as the “US 1916 Anti-Dumping Act” dispute case, also in order to simply put<br />
a stop to an impending rise in imports from the US caused by a falling dollar. Even<br />
though the implementation of the WTO judgment is doubtful, as the “material damage”<br />
caused is not directly restituted to the claimant and its realization depends on<br />
the trade related countermeasures, the political dimension of this procedure should<br />
not be underestimated.<br />
The increasingly openly led trade competition between the U.S. and the EU has<br />
167 “The Appellate Body, on November 10, 2003, issued its report on the complaints brought to the WTO by Brazil,<br />
China, the European Communities, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland against the United States<br />
- Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products. It upheld most of the Panel’s conclusions<br />
that the U.S. measures were inconsistent with the WTO Safeguards Agreement and the GATT 1994”, http:<br />
//www.wto.org/english/news_e/news_e.htm.<br />
168 http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news_e.htm#248_259_abr, also see: http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/<br />
issues/sectoral/industry/steel/pr101103_en.htm, http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/sectoral/industry/steel/<br />
memo101103_en.htm.<br />
169 “Three years after the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 was found incompatible with WTO rules, the EU is still waiting<br />
for concrete signs that the US will repeal its condemned legislation. Confronted with persisting inaction, the EU has<br />
decided to reactivate the arbitration process that will decide on retaliatory measures. [...] But, the persisting inaction<br />
of the U.S. leaves the EU no other option than to exercise this right under the WTO.” EU seeks retaliatory and<br />
protective measures in US 1916 Anti-Dumping Act dispute, Brussels, September 22, 2003: http://europa.eu.int/<br />
comm/trade/issues/respectrules/anti_dumping/pr220903_en.htm.<br />
170 Robert B.Zoellick: America will not wait for the won’t-do countries, in: FT, September 22, 2003, p .23, http:<br />
//www.ustr.gov/speech-test/zoellick/2003-09-22-ft.htm.<br />
171 See the revealing speach of Pascal Lamy: “Trade Crisis?”, European Institute, Washington, November 4, 2003,<br />
http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/lamy/speeches_articles/spla198_en.htm.