Subscribe to our free, weekly email newsletter!


China blocks panel requests by the U.S., EU and Japan on “rare earths” dispute

The United States, the European Union and Japan told the DSB they were, respectively, requesting the establishment of a panel as their consultations with China had failed to resolve their concerns.
By Patrick Burnson, Executive Editor
July 10, 2012

At yesterday’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) China said it was not in a position to accept the establishment of a panel requested by the United States, the European Union and Japan regarding its measures related to the exportation of rare earths, tungsten and molybdenum.

The United States, the European Union and Japan told the DSB they were, respectively, requesting the establishment of a panel as their consultations with China had failed to resolve their concerns.

Late last year, Congressman Don Manzullo (R-IL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia & the Pacific, held a hearing to highlight the fact that China controls 97 percent of the rare earths market and has been limiting exports.

As reported in Logistics Management, this was said to cause “skyrocketing” costs of the minerals to the detriment of manufacturers in the U.S. and other countries.

The United States said because of China’s position as a leading global producer of these materials, China’s export restraint measures gave China the ability to significantly affect global supply and pricing. It said that the materials at issue are key inputs in the production of a wide range of important products, such as hybrid car batteries, wind turbines, automobiles and advanced electronics. It added that the export restraints appeared to be inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and China’s Protocol of Accession.

The European Union said China’s export restrictions significantly distort the market and create competitive advantages for the Chinese manufacturing industry to the detriment of foreign competitors. It said these policies put pressure on foreign producers to move their operations and technologies to China. It recognized environmental protection and sustainable resource management as legitimate aims but strongly believed that export restrictions are not the appropriate tools to promote these aims.

Japan said that the materials at issue are used by its industry in the production of various final products, such as catalysts and polishing media. China’s export restrictions have caused a short supply of the materials in the international market and significant price differences between China’s domestic market and export market. It said that Japanese manufacturers have faced difficulty in purchasing the materials from China, putting them at a disadvantageous position with their Chinese counterparts.

China said that its policies in question are aimed at protecting natural resources and achieving sustainable economic development. It said it was puzzled by the complainants’ initiation of the panel process as it has no intention of protecting its domestic industry through means that would distort trade. It added that at the present meeting, it was not in a position to accept the establishment of a panel.

About the Author

image
Patrick Burnson
Executive Editor

Patrick Burnson is executive editor for Logistics Management and Supply Chain Management Review magazines and web sites. Patrick is a widely-published writer and editor who has spent most of his career covering international trade, global logistics, and supply chain management. He lives and works in San Francisco, providing readers with a Pacific Rim perspective on industry trends and forecasts. You can reach him directly at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).


Subscribe to Logistics Management magazine

Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Get timely insider information that you can use to better manage your
entire logistics operation.
Start your FREE subscription today!

Recent Entries

Shippers are trying to make sense of quickly shifting ocean carrier alliances and partnerships—with the viability of some players even brought into question.

The questions for the most recent Semiannual Economic Forecast, which was released last week, included: 1-has the strength of the U.S. dollar had a negative, negligible or positive impact on their organization’s profits?; 2-has the net impact of the depressed prices of oil and related commodities been negative, negligible, or positive for their organization’s profits; and 3-how would they characterize the combined impact of their organization’s profits on the strength of the U.S. dollar and the depressed prices of oil and related commodities.

The Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported this week that that U.S. trade with its North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners Canada and Mexico dropped 5.8 percent on an annual basis in March to $90.5 billion.

Shippers sourcing their goods out the Port of Oakland’s largest marine terminal will soon need to make an appointment drayage providers before their cargo is released.

U.S. Carloads fell 10.6 percent at 244,290, and intermodal containers and trailers were off 6.5 percent at 262,693.

Article Topics

News · Global · Logistics · Trade · All topics

Comments

Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.


© Copyright 2016 Peerless Media LLC, a division of EH Publishing, Inc • 111 Speen Street, Ste 200, Framingham, MA 01701 USA