Trade Cases

China Has Failed to Comply With WTO Commitments: AISI

Written by Ethan Bernard

September 22, 2023

The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) has laid out a case for China’s failure to comply with its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, which it joined in 2001.

“Despite more than two decades in which to make reforms, China continues to use massive subsidies and other forms of government support to build and maintain an enormous steel industry in violation of market principles and China’s WTO commitments,” AISI said in a 42-page document to the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Sept. 20.

The institute said “these comments particularly relate to import regulation, export regulation, internal policies affecting trade, intellectual property rights, and other WTO commitments.”

AISI said that in 2023 crude steel production in China is expected to exceed 1 billion metric tons for the fifth consecutive year. This is ~10 times the annual steel demand in the US.

“AISI strongly urges the Biden administration to take action to hold China accountable for its trade-distorting policies and practices,” the institute wrote. This can be accomplished by “reinforcing the trade actions taken by the previous administration.” These measures “aimed to counter China’s export-driven economic policies that adversely impact US steelmakers.”

The institute noted there is “a broad, international consensus, based on an overwhelming amount of evidence, that China has largely abandoned its policy of liberalizing its economy.” Instead, AISI said, China “continues to adhere to a policy of state capitalism that is antithetical to the principles of free and fair trade.”

AISI submitted the comments in response to a request from the Office of the USTR. They were given to the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC). View the full document here.

Ethan Bernard

Ethan Bernard is a reporter and editor for Steel Market Update. He previously worked for American Metal Market as a copy editor in the New York office for two years starting in 2008. Later, he copy edited AMM’s monthly magazine on a freelance basis from 2015 until 2017. With experience in financial copywriting and textbook publishing, he holds a BA in Comparative Literature from UC Berkeley, and an MFA. in Creative Writing from New York University. He can be reached at ethan@steelmarketupdate.com or 724-759-7871.

Read more from Ethan Bernard

Latest in Trade Cases

Price: How did ‘Buy Clean’ get switched to ‘Buy Dirty’?

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) appropriated more than $4 billion to the General Services Administration (GSA) and Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) for “Buy Clean” programs. The statute makes clear that GSA and FHWA purchases under these programs are limited to those with “substantially lower” emissions. There is no ambiguity in that requirement. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has defined “substantially lower” to mean products with the lowest 20% of embodied emissions when compared to similar materials.

Op-Ed: Strong trade enforcement builds prosperity and security

Tariffs on unfairly traded steel and other products help to stabilize America’s most important industries, safeguard tens of thousands of jobs, and protect national security. My union, the United Steelworkers (USW), never seeks these remedies lightly. And presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, implement them only after diligent investigations documenting the harm that foreign adversaries intentionally inflict upon our country with dumping, overproduction and other kinds of trade cheating. I don’t think Lewis Leibowitz considered these points while criticizing tariffs in his excessively pro-free-trade column, “Where is the voice of the consumer?” on May 5.

Leibowitz on trade: Where is the voice of the consumer?

The election campaign is white-hot right now, and the Biden administration is touting its protectionist message. Just this past week, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) touted this message. In a release entitled “What They are Saying,” USTR quoted many of the usual protectionist groups praising government action against Chinese steel exports and shipbuilding. Consuming industries in the United States, which employ many times the American workers as the industries seeking trade protection, were not mentioned.