International trade complexities

I write in response to Mike Seccombe’s piece (“Trump’s trade war leaves Turnbull gun-shy”, March 17–23).

I, too, am an expert on international trade, with five years as Australia’s permanent representative to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), ending my public service career as deputy secretary in the Department of Trade. I disagree with your observations about Australia’s ability to join a case against the United States actions on steel and aluminium. Quite apart from the fact it would be a bit rich for us to protest about measures from which we had been exempted, there is no basis for any action against the US in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The agreement allows actions taken for national security reasons, and no judicial authority in the WTO is in a position to interrogate or deliberate on US actions taken for that purpose. The US could not sustain a case of dumping – at least in the case of steel – since no US company complained about dumped imports. The case was initiated by the US Commerce Department, which presumably is why Trump was advised to choose the “national security” route. The idea that we could somehow make a case built around the fact that iron ore prices are down, or share prices have fallen, would be unprecedented. The issue of free trade is much more complicated than was made out.

– Colin Teese, Toorak, Vic