Paragrapher Free Article

— %100 Original Causerie —

NATO ???

Yesterday in Brussels, NATO kicked off a yearlong process to draft a new strategic concept. The last strategic concept was adopted a decade ago at the Washington Summit marking the alliance’s 50th anniversary, when NATO was at war in what turned out to be a 78-day bombing campaign to stop Serbia and its autocratic leader Slobodan Milosevic’s ruthless campaign of slaughter in Kosovo labeled mildly as ethnic cleansing. But, in many ways, the challenges today are greater than at any time in NATO’s 60-year history.

For one thing, NATO’s success led to a complete dissolution of the enemy it was created to deter, contain and defeat when the Soviet Union imploded two decades ago. Yet, NATO still remains a military alliance directed against very diaphanous and different threats. Thus, NATO has been struggling for a raison d’etre that recognizes traditional defense does not fit the broader security challenges and dangers that are in evidence, all the while expanding from 19 to 28 member nations.

The centerpiece of the alliance rests in Article V of the Washington Treaty: an attack on one in Europe or North America constitutes an attack against all. In conducting its business, consensus, meaning unanimity in agreement, has been the modus operandi. However, the definition of threat is not universally shared as many NATO members are more comfortable with traditional and proximate notions of territorial defense than with the newer expeditionary missions that have taken the alliance to its first ground war ever in Afghanistan, and with new threats from cyberattack and protection of critical infrastructure to responding to huge disasters whether of man or nature. And make no mistake. The future credibility and cohesion of the alliance rests on how well or how badly Afghanistan turns out — in any event likely to prove a “close run thing.”

Beyond these profound changes in the security environment, NATO must come to grips with other tough issues. In virtually all member states, defense spending is declining in difficult economic times. NATO’s bureaucratic organization is sclerotic and needs major overhaul. And in dealing with this array of daunting issues, as outgoing Supreme Allied Commander Army Gen. John Craddock has outspokenly observed, “NATO’s political leadership is often AWOL.”

The Leninist question of “what is to be done?” now confronts the alliance in developing a new strategic concept. But not everything is negative. NATO has proven to be the most successful military alliance in history. It has the best armed forces in the world, many of whom have seen active combat in Afghanistan and some in Iraq. And France, under the leadership of President Nicolas Sarkozy, has rejoined the military command structure.

A new leadership is taking over in the key leadership positions. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen will become the new secretary-general later this fall. U.S. Adm. James Stavridis is the new Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the first time a navy admiral has held that position. And in September, French Air Force Gen. Stephane Abrial will assume the duties of Supreme Allied Commander Transformation in Norfolk, Va., becoming the first non-American ever to hold that post.

Furthermore, NATO has just completed a major study on “Joint Futures” means to sketch out the range of threats facing the alliance from conventional to the more exotic, a very good first step in helping the alliance think through the nature of the dangers it is prepared to counter. Clearly, the shift from a defense-based to a broader security-based alliance is essential. However, given domestic politics in the 28 member states, while intellectually straightforward, if not done carefully, this transformation could be the political equivalent of leaping across the Grand Canyon in two single bounds.

In negotiating this transformation from defense to security as the basis for the alliance, history offers a tempting way forward. In the mid-1960s, the alliance was divided over conventional defense versus nuclear deterrence. With growing Soviet capabilities in both conventional and nuclear forces, the United States argued for stressing the former. The European allies, not wanting either a conventional war in their back yards or having to spend more on conventional forces, favored nuclear deterrence. The solution was “flexible response.”

Originally meant to defend across the entire conflict spectrum, the political brilliance of flexible response was that it allowed both sides of the Atlantic to emphasize their strategic preferences, relieving this political tension. What is needed is a new version of flexible response that enables member states to focus on the threats each view as most critical so the alliance is not forced into strategic platitudes or fundamental deadlock over the rationale underpinning the alliance. If this balance can be achieved, NATO could have at least another 60 years left. If not, we could end up reinventing an unsatisfactory replacement structure.

June 9, 2010 Posted by | Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

EU Anti-dumping Cases Related Issues Shoes Analysis

Chinese Ambassador to the World Trade Organization on April 20 formally requested the WTO set up expert groups to investigate and rule EU shoe anti dumping measures taken in violation of international trade rules. Day meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body meeting, the Chinese delegation pointed out that the EU’s shoe anti dumping measures, whether procedural or substantive violation of WTO related agreements at all. The author believes that the EU anti dumping measures on China shoes is the essence of trade protectionism, in violation of World Trade Organization agreements, undermine the international free trade order, not only harm China related industries, but also the interests of the EU member states caused by consumers loss of certain benefits.

First, EU shoe anti dumping cases the basic situation of starting from October 2006, the EU began to impose on Chinese leather goods 16.5% anti dumping duties; Chinese shoe exports to Europe, production has been reduced by 20%, resulting in some of China 20,000 workers lose their jobs. October 2008, at the expiry of anti dumping measures in the occasion of the EU regardless of the interests of consumers and the strong opposition from China, but also initiated a review of the final. The European Union on Dec. 22, 2009, announced the decision to extend production to China and Vietnam have imposed punitive tariffs on footwear period of 15 months. The Chinese government on February 4, 2010 the EU’s shoe anti dumping cases to resort to the WTO, the two sides on the case then launched a 60 day bilateral consultations. The two sides on March 31 in view of the recent round of consultations was held unable to find a mutually satisfactory solution, China on April 20 formally requested WTO dispute settlement body set up expert groups to ensure that China’s legitimate rights and interests are protected. Day meeting, the Chinese side requests the EU expressed “regret”, and in accordance with procedures to prevent the establishment of expert groups. As long as China was held in the next month again at the Dispute Settlement Body request to set up an expert group, the group will automatically set up.

Second, the EU anti dumping measures on China shoes procedures and physical analysis of improper
(A) the nature of international trade protectionism. Extend the EU’s unfair anti dumping measures on China shoes, in essence, the post crisis era and its frequent implementation of trade protectionism, China’s continuing policy inertia ??. Of the EU footwear industry has been going on for 14 years of trade protection, at present there is no damage to the EU footwear industry conditions, to extend anti dumping measures the EU footwear industry would not benefit, only harm the interests of related industries in China and EU consumers. November 19, 2009, at the European Commission anti dumping advisory committee, the representatives of EU member states the majority of the facts from an objective, anti dumping measures against the further extension. But the EU eventually succumb to the pressure of trade protectionism, insisting on Chinese made shoes to extend anti dumping measures, indicating the path of trade protectionism, the more lines farther. Breach of international commitments, the EU openly implement its policy of trade protectionism, the Chinese shoes anti dumping investigations and decisions, in violation of WTO rules related to the detriment of the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises, in fact, both the EU member states punish consumers and can harm the EU’s long term political economic and trade relations with China’s healthy development.

(B) in violation of WTO related rules of procedure. EU Trade Commission in violation of anti dumping investigations trade principle of fairness, the Chinese shoe enterprises ignore the evidence submitted, the program obviously inappropriate. European Court of Justice in the Interpretation of anti dumping law Tiaokuan process, is entirely based on the European Union in December 2009 announced the sunset review of China’s ruling shoes, mainly based on field verification of the case the EU does not comply with WTO related rules of procedure. In the case of the review process, of Chinese partner by the EU Trade Commission of unfair treatment, do not get enough right to justify anti dumping charges, the EU ruling, of course also with departure from the principle of equality seriously. The author believes that the reason why the EU to extend anti dumping measures on China shoes, trade protectionism is one of the important reasons which, on the other hand the EU market economy status and application of standard procedures identified a key reason for the confusion is. In fact, in the review process of investigation, exporters, importers, exporters and representatives of the Community producers on the issues raised in the review set, the right of rebuttal or comment by undue restrictions, the Chinese enterprises, relevant enterprises and consumers in the EU interest demands have not been given due attention.The European Union’s decision procedure in another member of its decision not to discuss, simply by a “rubber stamp” approach by not only being a member of the opposition half, has also been related to the European mainland enterprises in China protest . The fundamental reason lies in its decision process is neither fair nor transparent, a serious violation of the WTO principle of fair and transparent.

(C) in violation of WTO rules related entities. According to WTO “Anti Dumping Agreement” requirement, the minimum dumping constitutes a large, serious harm to the domestic industry, dumping and injury, causal relationship between. The EU’s shoe anti dumping measures, in fact, did not have these conditions. Substantial evidence that the fact that there is no dumping, dumping damage is nonsense; there is no reasonable evidence that, within the meaning of the number of dumped imports and the price level and the Community industry within the meaning of the damage to the causal link. China’s Ministry of Commerce, Bureau of Fair Trade related person in charge pointed out that China’s shoe exports up to thousands of companies, mostly private or foreign, in this highly competitive market, companies can not sell below cost product to make their own losses, companies are not granted by the Government from any subsidies. Currently, the European Union good indicators related industries, strong exports, indicating European industry is competitive, there was no need for protection. European industry in global supply chain, and gradually move towards high end market, their products do not directly compete with Chinese products, to continue the anti dumping on China without any solid grounds. In addition, the public interest standard to judge, can not prove the legitimacy of its anti dumping measures and legitimacy.The intervention of the authorities in determining whether the Community interest, it should be all the different interests of the evaluation as a whole. However, the fact that a large number of EU decisions and not take into account the relevant industry organizations, business interests and demands of consumers. Therefore, the anti dumping measures taken since it is not out of the Community interest, there is no justification for anti dumping measures, naturally, against the public interest criteria for judging.

Third, should the laws of EU anti dumping policy
(A) full use of EU legal relief channels. First to make full use of EU law relief channels. “EU Treaty” Article 173 provides: impose anti dumping duties with the parties directly concerned to the European courts for review of the effectiveness of anti dumping order. Chinese shoes enterprises should initiate proceedings to start judicial review, and asked the European court to review the entire case. Recommendations from the European Commission ruled in China related companies and entities in the process perspective of problems in the complaint, pay special attention to defense from a public interest standard. EU anti dumping law clearly required in the implementation of any anti dumping measures should be carried out before the investigating authorities examine the public interest, which is anti dumping duties is a necessary condition. In general, a country in the implementation of anti dumping measures, the most direct loss of public interest is the loss of importers and end users. Therefore, Chinese enterprises should strengthen and importers and end users of multilateral cooperation, to use their native strengths, enhance the overall defense capability in responding.

(B) actively use the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. China should actively make use of WTO dispute settlement mechanism. In view of the EU anti dumping legislation and enforcement measures were not strictly abide by WTO rules, China certainly has the right within the framework of the WTO dispute settlement legislation and this appeal against the ruling. The Chinese government was February 4, 2010 the EU’s shoe anti dumping cases to resort to the WTO; and on April 20 formally requested the WTO to set up expert. The author believes that the focus of our government the next step should be defined as: active use of WTO dispute settlement mechanism, the defense presented evidence of strong reasons to protect the legitimate rights and interests of China’s shoe industry.

(C) strengthen the EU negotiations between the political and economic fields. Recovery process in the global economy, countries in particular to avoid the abuse of trade protection measures, should be sought through dialogue and cooperation and mutual benefit and win win solution. In addition to legal channels, the Chinese government should continue to strengthen bilateral negotiations with the EU side to properly resolve the trade disputes. Negotiations led by the EU’s emphasis on the concerns of China, in good faith to resolve trade disputes, the early resumption of shoes free trade. At present, the EU members for the restoration of normal trade of footwear products relatively strong desire; therefore urge the EU negotiations are expected to respect the facts, listen to public opinion, to immediately stop the anti dumping measures on China shoes.Other hand, China should join other anti dumping victim of the EU improper, not to impose anti dumping measures and objective international political and economic pressure, prompted the EU to give up as soon as possible the discriminatory anti dumping policy towards China.

(D) make good use of China’s anti dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures. International trade protectionism and free trade offsetting the other, to some extent also the international political and economic course of the game between the force of law. Therefore, China should further improve our anti dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures in the legal system and revise the related laws and formulation. Implementing the Anti dumping and countervailing regulations, handle cases with efforts to improve the quality of case handling, better protection of domestic industry. In order to fully play to the anti dumping, countervailing role of legal means, for the domestic industry has made application, allegation of dumping, the domestic industry showed clear signs of the products Sun Hai, be sure to Guiding the time the law placed on file within the Jishi. Further speed up the investigation and adjudication of cases the progress made so that the dumped imports and the domestic industry suffered injury in time be protected by law. Improve the investigation and adjudication of rules, norms handling procedures, adhere to the principle of fair and equitable handling of cases, improve the industrial damage investigation and adjudication of the quality and level. Improve the industrial injury early warning mechanism, analysis, and import and export situation of international competition, the impact on the national economy, judging the industrial safety and scientific index system damage; timely forecasting and warning, to ensure sustained and stable development of related industries.

In summary, the world’s economic development should be oriented towards free trade and trade liberalization, particularly in the context of the financial crisis, any protectionist measures would be on the world economy is recovering and obstacles, should be get rid of. The relevant Chinese government departments, industries and companies, to clearly understand the situation, positive response, strengthen coordination, master the rules of the World Trade Organization, proficient in related domestic trade laws, dare to take up legal arms, protect the state’s overall interests, to protect the security of domestic industries, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises.

May 17, 2010 Posted by | Business, World Trade Organization | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment