|
Daniel Ikenson discusses textile trade quotas on CNBC.
December 14, 2004.
|
CNBC Host: Dumping by China and job loss as a result. Your views Mr. Ikenson?
Daniel Ikenson: "Well lets distinguish between dumping and what is actually going on here. China, when it acceded to the WTO in 2001, it agreed to allow the United States, Europe, and Canada to re-impose quotas once they came off. What's happening here, though, is that the US textile industry is trying to have quotas re-imposed before they've even ended. There has to be a surge in imports and that surge has to be causing market disruption. These products that they are seeking new restrictions on have never come out from under quota and by definition can't be surging. The apparel producers in the United States saw the writing on the wall in the mid-90's. Many of them went abroad and started sourcing from all over the place. The textile industry has stuck to its guns and tried to fight trade liberalization wherever it can."
CNBC Host: "China's offer to put a tax on certain exports, is that helpful?"
Daniel Ikenson: "I think pretty much the latter. The United States is probably not going to back off imposing new safe-guards, or at least pursuing these new safe-guard measures. China is cognizant of the fact that there is fear in the world that they may end up crowding out some of the world's producers. But with respect to US jobs, when the multi-fiber arrangement was agreed to in 1974 which established this big quota system, the argument was that the rich countries needed time to adjust to competition. And then in 1995, when the agreement on textiles and clothing was agreed to end these quotas, the same arguments were put forward. We need a four-stage liberalization process. The US industry back loaded everything for liberalization this year, so to hear that they were concerned about job loss is just an echo from the past."
|
