4 ms·

Of course it is; and it also breaks the US' WTO obligations.

by throwaway4good 3y ago

dragonelite 3y ago
Rules Based International Order, the rules just changed half way the game.
- shapefrog 3y ago
  The rules are clear. There is one set for them and one set for us, we are afterall The Good Guys (tm)
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The first rule is always might makes right.
Akronymus 3y ago
Oh, could you elaborate on which obligations it breaks? I am not well versed with them.
- throwaway4good 3y ago
  Of course this has not gone to courts yet but it seems similar to what the US did on steel - claiming national security and then deliberately stuffing the Arbitration process when the first court ruled against it.
yorwba 3y ago
It doesn't break WTO obligations any more than China's list of restricted sectors limiting foreign investment does: http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/www/202112/20211227175520952.pdf http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/www/202112/20211227175520952.pdf No country would join the WTO if it required them to give up control of critical infrastructure.
- mnau 3y ago
  Whataboutism.
  - audunw 3y ago
    Pointing to another country’s human rights issues to distract from your own can be whataboutism. Everyone should strive to implement human rights regardless of what anyone else is doing. Deciding not to strictly follow a trade agreement when the other party of that agreement is doing it all can to avoid the spirit and letter of the agreement is not whataboutism. That’s just a reasonable response.
    - yorwba 3y ago
      My point was that WTO membership doesn't require countries to compromise their security. Neither the US nor China are violating the spirit or the letter of the WTO Agreement by placing national security restrictions on sectors they consider critical. (Article XXI on security exceptions: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art21_e.pdf https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art21_e... )
    - mnau 3y ago
      It's still the good old "but he does it too, so it's fine that I do it" No, it's not. We moved past that so we have an (in theory) independent arbiter, in this case WTO.
    - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
      > when the other party of that agreement is doing it all can to avoid the spirit and letter of the agreement I hear this claim often about China (particularly from Americans), but I think it's very far from being true. China underwent massive, extremely painful reforms in order to join the WTO, on a scale that would be difficult for most Americans to imagine. For example, China basically built an entire intellectual property legal system from scratch. Or another example: China split up numerous large state-owned enterprises and forced the resulting companies to operate on a for-profit basis, which meant that tens of millions of workers lost their jobs and many more lost benefits. I think most of the exaggerated statements about China not caring about WTO rules stem from a basic misunderstanding both of how the Chinese economy works and what WTO rules require.

Of course it is; and it also breaks the US' WTO obligations.

dragonelite 3y ago

Rules Based International Order, the rules just changed half way the game.

shapefrog 3y ago
The rules are clear. There is one set for them and one set for us, we are afterall The Good Guys (tm)
lotsofpulp 3y ago
The first rule is always might makes right.

Akronymus 3y ago

Oh, could you elaborate on which obligations it breaks? I am not well versed with them.

throwaway4good 3y ago
Of course this has not gone to courts yet but it seems similar to what the US did on steel - claiming national security and then deliberately stuffing the Arbitration process when the first court ruled against it.

yorwba 3y ago

It doesn't break WTO obligations any more than China's list of restricted sectors limiting foreign investment does: http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/www/202112/20211227175520952.pdf http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/www/202112/20211227175520952.pdf No country would join the WTO if it required them to give up control of critical infrastructure.

mnau 3y ago
Whataboutism.
- audunw 3y ago
  Pointing to another country’s human rights issues to distract from your own can be whataboutism. Everyone should strive to implement human rights regardless of what anyone else is doing. Deciding not to strictly follow a trade agreement when the other party of that agreement is doing it all can to avoid the spirit and letter of the agreement is not whataboutism. That’s just a reasonable response.
  - yorwba 3y ago
    My point was that WTO membership doesn't require countries to compromise their security. Neither the US nor China are violating the spirit or the letter of the WTO Agreement by placing national security restrictions on sectors they consider critical. (Article XXI on security exceptions: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art21_e.pdf https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art21_e... )
  - mnau 3y ago
    It's still the good old "but he does it too, so it's fine that I do it" No, it's not. We moved past that so we have an (in theory) independent arbiter, in this case WTO.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > when the other party of that agreement is doing it all can to avoid the spirit and letter of the agreement I hear this claim often about China (particularly from Americans), but I think it's very far from being true. China underwent massive, extremely painful reforms in order to join the WTO, on a scale that would be difficult for most Americans to imagine. For example, China basically built an entire intellectual property legal system from scratch. Or another example: China split up numerous large state-owned enterprises and forced the resulting companies to operate on a for-profit basis, which meant that tens of millions of workers lost their jobs and many more lost benefits. I think most of the exaggerated statements about China not caring about WTO rules stem from a basic misunderstanding both of how the Chinese economy works and what WTO rules require.