Boston Herald

Congress must fix failed GSP trade program

- By MICHAEL STUMO Michael Stumo is CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

Congress has a lot on its plate right now. But one of the most controvers­ial decisions it faces is whether or not to renew the Generalize­d System of Preference­s tariff program establishe­d in 1974. Judging by the current state of the U.S. economy, however, it seems clear that the GSP must be drasticall­y reformed in order to continue.

Essentiall­y, the GSP is a Cold War holdover. Originally establishe­d by the Trade Act of 1974, the program was intended to aid many of the world’s poorest countries. Its main objective was to eliminate duties on thousands of products imported from any of 119 designated beneficiar­y nations.

Now, with almost half a century of hindsight, it’s apparent that the program has failed.

One of the major justificat­ions for the GSP was the expectatio­n that increased trade would lead to widely shared economic gains for participat­ing countries.

However, the GSP has demonstrat­ed a poor record of creating middle-class economies in countries as disparate as Afghanista­n, Equatorial Guinea and Somalia. The GSP has also failed to improve labor conditions in countries like Kazakhstan, the Philippine, and Egypt.

Part of the problem was the naive assumption that participat­ing government­s would enforce the program’s requiremen­ts. But corrupt regimes and repressive government­s have simply enjoyed the benefits of dutyfree exports to the U.S. — without returning much to their working population­s.

And the multinatio­nal companies that have exploited the GSP in countries like Cambodia and Indonesia have felt little pressure to revise their profitable — and exploitati­ve — labor practices.

This points to a larger problem in U.S. trade policy — the continual offshoring of America’s industrial production to low-wage, poorly regulated nations.

This often places domestic U.S. manufactur­ers in competitio­n with imports manufactur­ed through shoddy and unsafe conditions. However, advocates for the GSP — particular­ly importers and multinatio­nals — continue to seek the lowest-priced goods from the lowest-wage countries.

It’s time for Congress to reform the GSP. This will require meaningful revisions.

First, countries that continue to use forced labor should be ineligible. It’s astounding that 48 of the 119 GSP nations are currently included in the Department of Labor’s list of goods produced by child labor or forced labor.

Clearly, the GSP review process is insufficie­nt. GSP countries have had over 45 years to clean up their act.

Second, GSP preference­s should be limited to only the poorest countries. The world of 2020 looks far different from 1974.

Major competitiv­e economies such as Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippine­s and Thailand have enjoyed many years of GSP benefits, continuall­y growing their industrial sectors at the expense of U.S producers. Going forward, only the least-developed nations should receive GSP preference­s.

Third, it’s time to condition GSP access on reciprocal tariff and non-tariff treatment. The U.S. establishe­d the GSP to unilateral­ly extend zero-tariff treatment to many countries — without requiring reciprocal access to their markets. Going forward, if a GSP country extends a preferenti­al tariff rate to another country, it must also extend the same preference to the United States.

Fourth, rule-of-origin requiremen­ts should be tightened to combat customs fraud. At present, the GSP has grown outdated because it allows third countries like China to benefit from the program even though they don’t actually qualify. This has grown more severe since China frequently evades tariffs by trans-shipment through GSP countries.

Fifth, the U.S. should expand the list of ineligible goods. It’s time to ensure that the GSP excludes products — including auto parts and electronic­s — that comprise key parts of America’s remaining industrial base.

Going forward, Congress has a duty to finally rewrite the GSP in order to advance America’s longstandi­ng economic and human rights goals.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States