Keep steel strong; level trading field
The president and CEO of U.S. Steel, David Burritt, said he believes that President Donald Trump will take strong, decisive action against foreign steel dumping. We hope he is right. A crackdown — long past due — not only would help American steelmakers’ bottom lines but shore up national security.
During the Cold War, the federal government was so concerned about America’s steel-making capacity that it stockpiled the raw materials needed for production. Now, communities nationwide are struggling with pollution caused by those sites.
The geopolitical considerations are different today, but steel-related national-security concerns remain. Worse, they remain unaddressed. U.S. steelmakers struggle to compete against foreign producers that sell at below-market rates, partly because of subsidies from their governments. The unfair competition comes from adversaries, such as China, but also from allies, including Japan, Turkey and South Korea.
This is not about petty protectionism. If steelmakers can’t compete, they shut down, and America loses capacity. Or, with revenue down, the companies put off capital projects needed to remain modern, undercutting their competitiveness in another way. Once capacity is lost or diminished, it can’t be ramped up again in a hurry.
Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., has expressed concern about preserving capacity for the military, electrical grid and energy development.
The Commerce Department has held hearings on the impact of steel dumping, and Trump already has cited a 1962 law allowing him to impose tariffs and take other steps outside the usual process for resolving trade disputes.
During the Cold War, the government went to great lengths to ensure the steel industry’s viability. It’s no less important now. Russia’s moves are tit-for-tat
The sanctions game being played by the United States and Russia is unfolding in three dimensions. The first is moral, the second is economic, the third is domestic politics.
President Donald Trump is now confronted with the political necessity of signing a new sanctions bill that passed Congress by overwhelming majorities. Trump may yearn to move forward on relations with Russia, but Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that the moral codes of international law should still apply. They’re right.
The sanctions are more than justified. Russia seized and annexed Crimea, part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine, in 2014. It provided the missile its rebel surrogates used to shoot down a Malaysian airliner overflying Ukraine, and it continues to interfere in Ukraine’s affairs.
In December, President Barack Obama imposed further sanctions after the U.S. intelligence community unanimously agreed that Russian hackers, at Putin’s direction, had interfered with last year’s presidential election. Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized two Russian-owned compounds on the East Coast.
Putin didn’t retaliate in December because he’d been led to believe by people close to Trump that the incoming president would ease the sanctions. But questions of Russian interference, and possible collusion by people close to Trump, have boxed the president in.
Putin is now striking back, ordering the U.S. mission in Russia downsized by 755 people.
The tit-for-tat will hurt both nations. This boils down to who blinks first: a Russian autocrat, or a U.S. president still restrained by the rule of law.