Will Obama Soon Be Kicking China Tires?
President Obama faces a September 17th deadline to determine whether to go along with the International Trade Commission’s recommendation to impose high tariffs on low end Chinese tires. The US has the authority to impose these tariffs under section 421 of China’s complicated WTO accession agreement. There were six similar cases during the Bush administration, although in no cases were tariffs implemented, including four separate cases where President Bush himself shot down the commission’s prescription.
This is the first China trade case for President Obama and it is therefore being watched very closely both in the United States and in China. Interestingly, the tire unions brought this case and the tire companies have been noticeably quiet, presumably in an effort to maintain their good standing in China as they try to capture a piece of the rapidly expanding Chinese tire market. It will be interesting to see how Obama plays this as he tries to avoid angering the Chinese before the September 20 G-20 meeting and before his November visit to China, while also trying to placate the unions, who supported him in the election.
There aren’t that many places to get really insightful analysis of such a technical issue, but AmCham-China just did an excellent podcast with Akin Gump’s Spencer Griffith. Griffith is a highly respected international trade lawyer who clearly knows his stuff and my friend Josh Gartner does a great job with the questions. I’ve been enjoying AmCham-China’s “China Brief Insight” podcasts for a while (hey, they had me on, so how bad could it be?) and I highly recommend you catch this podcast interview if you have any interest in US-China trade issues and on what may very soon be coming down the pike. Click here if you want to get it through iTunes.

Comments (5)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endtimjames - September 8, 2009 8:21 AM
Dear British Anon:
If Americans are to communicate by the Queen's English, I'm afraid we need to correct our spelling for pronunciation; e.g. tires = toyas.
Additionally, many of these words are actually different things. A fender isn't a bumper; gasoline isn't petrol; a sidewalk isn't the pavement (we've actually separated traffic from pedestrians). And our country is large enough that we need more than one word for "motorway."
Finally, these are mainly terms that the ex-empire adopted from American innovations. I don't remember the Brits' last technological advance since Dolly the sheep.
Twofish - September 8, 2009 11:44 PM
I don't see how or why "avoiding Chinese anger" should be a goal of the Obama administration in this particular instance.
China gets angry over things like Tibet and Taiwan. About trade issues, China gets at most mildly annoyed, and if it's in response to a WTO ruling, China can't retaliate economically, and since cheap tires is not an issue of national sovereignty, I don't see any reason why China would link this to any other set of issues.
One other thing is that the decision on what to do is likely going to be made by the US Trade Representative. Unless some other cabinet department (State, Commerce, or Defense) has an interest, the main agency is the USTR, and I don't see why State, Commerce, or Defense would care.
Ethan - September 9, 2009 1:54 PM
Ah yes, the British auto industry. With such venerated names such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Bently and Rolls Royce, it is the envy of the world.
Oh wait, those aren't British owned anymore. How's Leyland doing?
Brits ruled the world 100 years ago, yes, but please check with the calendar and get with the times.
Terry Crossman - September 9, 2009 5:45 PM
I had read that the reason that the tire companies are not supporting this is that they now only manufacture higher end more technologically advanced tires in the US while the imported tires that are the subject to the proposed tariffs are for the discount stores etc. These manufacturers are no longer in a position to manufacture the low end tires and poorer consumers will suffer as always if tariffs are imposed. But then, when has Washington ever taken the needs of consumers (with no lobbyists and gerrymandered districts)into account?
Anvelope - August 6, 2011 1:47 AM
He must support local market.