03-12-2004 11:11									#151
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If there is an investigation by the host country, the ICC loses jurisdiction. Have you not read the OP at all? The only investigations which are not protected are those sham investigations which are purposely designed to avoid ICC jurisdiciton. It was acknowledged that this meant that no Western country's national would ever be before the ICC (that wasn't the point anyway).

quote: if the organization can be used against us, it will be. And this is most certainly an example.

So the WTO has generally applicable rules that the US was in violation of, and it called the US on it! Oh no! It's being twisted by those evil ferriners!

Another post which validates my thread title. Why in the Hell are my fellow country so damned paranoid over nothing? I simply don't understand this 'everyone is out to get us' view.

	03-12-2004 21:51									#152
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui If there is an investigation by the host country, the ICC loses jurisdiction. Have you not read the OP at all? The only investigations which are not protected are those sham investigations which are purposely designed to avoid ICC jurisdiciton. It was acknowledged that this meant that no Western country's national would ever be before the ICC (that wasn't the point anyway). quote: if the organization can be used against us, it will be. And this is most certainly an example. So the WTO has generally applicable rules that the US was in violation of, and it called the US on it! Oh no! It's being twisted by those evil ferriners! Another post which validates my thread title. Why in the Hell are my fellow country so damned paranoid over nothing? I simply don't understand this 'everyone is out to get us' view.

Time to re-Quote the article:

quote: Originally posted by Whoha "The tariffs were crafted to be in accord with WTO rules, that is with Articles 2.1 and 4.1 of the Safeguards Agreement, as well as Articles X:3(a) and XIX:1 of the 1994 GATT agreement.

http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/l.../25-safeg_e.htm

This has the agreements on safe guards and the 1994 Gatt stuff on it.

	03-12-2004 22:45									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

And apparently the tariffs did not follow them. So the WTO said no dice. Trying to slide a tariff through by saying it follows such & such a rule and being told you were wrong in your interpretation of the rule isn't exactly an 'organization being used against us'. Have you read the rules? There is room for interpretation

In contrast, the ICC rules have been defined narrowly (at the behest of the US and other Western powers) and there is no room for interpretation when you deal with a Western power. Any minor investigation by a Western country is good enough to satisfy willingness and having a legal system is good enough to satisfy ableness.

Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 03-12-2004 at 22:53

	03-12-2004 23:28									#154
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I just posted the rules Imran, 30% of all of our steel making capacity going under = "serious injury".

the decision against the tariffs was not that they didn't follow those rules, but that the serious injury done to the steel industry was not the result of the tariffs and that we didn't dot every i or cross every t. It was a laughable display.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...RN%2520603%2520[/url](Fall%25202004).Presentation%25201--%2520Bush%2520Steel%2520Safeguards%2520Case.ppt+GATT+article+X:3&hl=en


"Arguments of the Parties


United States of America:

In the late 1990s thru 2001, US steel prices were at 20-year lows.

Steel industry faced tremendous pressures from a surge in imports due partly to global overproduction.

Thousands of jobs were at stake from increased competition.

Many steel firms were in or faced bankruptcy."

Arguments of the EC, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, & Brazil


1. The US failed to demonstrate that “unforeseen developments” led to the increase in imports. (Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994)

2. There were actually no significant increases in imports to cause serious injury or threaten domestic industry. (Article 2.1 ASG)

3. The US failed to distinguish between injury caused by imports and injury caused by other factors. (Article 4.2 (b) ASG)


4. US measures were more restrictive than necessary to address the supposed injury from increased imports. (Articles 3.1, 5.1 ASG)

5. Duration of measures extended beyond time necessary to remedy or prevent injury to domestic industry. (Article 7.1 ASG)
Same as above.

6. Sources of imports covered by investigation do not parallel with the sources of imports falling within the scope of the measures. (Articles 2.1 & 2.2 of ASG)

7. US incorrectly defined the relevant domestic industries to those allegedly being imported in increasing quantities. (Articles 2.1, 4.1 ASG & X:3, XIX GATT 1994)

8. US failed to apply the safeguard measures to all imports irrespective of their sources on an MFN basis (Articles 2.2 ASG & I, XIII, & XIX of GATT 1994)

9. US violated various procedural provisions by failing to provide adequate opportunity for consultations, to provide pertinent information on which it relied, & to make appropriate notifications. (Article 12 of ASG) "


No where in any of that bullshit do I see "the US suffered no harm." half of those are outright lies that even I can spot.

Last edited by Whoha on 03-12-2004 at 23:47

	03-12-2004 23:53									#155
	Increase Your PM Length

And what are the outright lies that the other countries alledged? And failing to dot the i's and cross the t's (such as distinguishing between injury caused by imports and injury caused by other factors) is never something trivial. So 30% of the steel industry was going under, could they show it was because of imports or was it actually because of other factors?

As the rules say:

A Member(1) may apply a safeguard measure to a product only if that Member has determined, pursuant to the provisions set out below, that such product is being imported into its territory in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products.

So you have to prove that it was imports that did that before you can simply raise tariffs.

	04-12-2004 01:55									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

import numbers:
96
Iron and steel mill prod 10,339

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...s/June/exh8.txt

97
Iron and steel mill products 10,896 http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...s/June/exh8.txt

98
Iron and steel mill products 13,157
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...s/June/exh8.txt

99
Iron and steel mill products 10,100
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...cember/exh8.txt

2000
Iron and steel mill products 11,595
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...0pr/12/exh8.txt

2001
Iron and steel mill products 8,201
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...1pr/12/exh8.txt

2002: Tariffs imposed:
Iron and steel mill products 9,072
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...2pr/12/exh8.txt

2003: Tariffs lifted:
Iron and steel mill products 7,381
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...3pr/12/exh8.txt

2004: Year to Date September Data nothing for October,november, or December yet:
Iron and steel mill products 11,461
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...4pr/09/exh8.txt

imports as a percentage of consumption are going up, as well :http://www.steelnews.org/04/nov69.htm

The massive spikes up in steel imports did cause harm, contrary to arguments 2 and 3.

arguments 4 and 5 contradict with argument 8. I will admit that argument 8 is correct, Bushes efforts to not hit certain developing countries, and our nafta partners with the steel tariffs was a mistake.