While the U.S. has tried to appear assertive in taking action against China’s trade practices, this strategy has yielded limited results. In a new commentary, fellow Simon Lester summarizes current U.S. policies addressing China’s trade conduct and advocates for the U.S.’ revitalized engagement with the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement system.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative recently stepped back from ongoing negotiations on digital trade at the World Trade Organization, citing unsettled domestic policy, and suspended support for digital trade rules in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework too. But if the U.S. wants to be a part of the conversation, it should reengage and help craft rules flexible enough to meet its future domestic policy needs, writes nonresident fellow Simon Lester.
Despite recent claims that “free trade is dead,” fellow Simon Lester explains that America was never close to anything resembling free trade in the first place. Instead, current U.S. trade policy, just like past policy, reflects a messy mix of free market and industrial policy views.
With the recent enactment of the CHIPS and Science Act, the conversation about industrial policy has started up again. Are state-directed economic policies back, and will such initiatives work?
On May 22, the House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense and sets the policies under which money (somewhat in excess of $600 billion) will be spent on our country’s defense. However, an amendment added to the bill will keep the Department of Defense from preparing for or performing any military activities that include any construction related to climate change.
Speaking from the historic steps of Old North on the Georgetown University campus on June 25, 2013, President Obama unveiled a detailed plan to address the causes and impacts of climate change. In his words, the president promised, “I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.”
Not quite a year later on June 6, 2014, Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, responded by proposing “state-specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector, as well as guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to achieve the state-specific goals.”
The recently released National Climate Assessment documents the accelerating rate of climate change caused by human activities, leading to extensive and damaging impacts. The report represents scientific findings on the state of climate change in the United States, summarized in a way that is accessible to its intended audience: the president, members of Congress, and the American people, writes Ron Sass, fellow in global climate change. Will the U.S. Congress respond actively to the report rather than do nothing, as it has in the past? Sass is not sure, but writes that “it is up to the American people to inform themselves and then vote into power those who have the ability and desire to understand the seriousness of the changing climate and are willing to work together to confront it.”
