MEMBERS PROPOSE WAYS TO COMBAT CARTELS AT COMPETITION MEETING
The Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy, held on 1-2 July, focused on so-called ‘hard-core’ cartels (those that engage in price-fixing, bid-rigging and market sharing) and ways of voluntary cooperation in competition policy. While the EU in its submission (WT/WGTCP/W/193, searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org/gen_search.asp) considered a WTO Agreement on competition policy banning hard-core cartels as the best way for dealing with the problem, other Members, including the US (WT/WGTCP/W/203), Japan (WT/WGTCP/W/195), Korea (W/WGTCP/W/200), Canada (WT/WGTCP/W/201), Australia (W/WGTCP/W/199 and Thailand (W/WGTCP/W/205) tabled new submissions stressing the importance of promoting voluntary cooperation in competition policy. Calling for multilateral cooperation against cartels, Thailand in its submission stated that developing countries were the most vulnerable to potential damage from international cartels. South Africa, Brazil, Romania and Indonesia also highlighted the harmful effects of international cartels and supported further discussion on the issue. India stressed that the group, under the Doha negotiating mandate, was still in a study phase said that the UN Conference on Trade and Development’s Set on Principles and Rules on Competition (SET) could offer the best guidance on dealing with restrictive business practices. Supported by Pakistan, Malaysia, Cuba and Venezuela, India noted that more than half the Members of WTO did not have competition laws, adding that SET contained important development provisions, such as developing country exemption from obligations. Pointing to the existence of other agreements, such as the International Competition network, Hong Kong China was sceptical of a multilateral agreement on competition policy being touted as the solution. Members also discussed technical cooperation and capacity building in the area of competition policy.
The next meeting of the Working group is scheduled for 26-27 September this year.
(Also see BRIDGES Weekly, 2 May 2002)
ICTSD Reporting.
NEW ZEALAND BECOMES NUMBER SEVEN IN US-STEEL DISPUTE
At a meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on 3 June, New Zealand became the seventh WTO Member to seek a ruling with regard to the safeguard measures imposed on steel imports by the US. The ‘Steel’ panel (see BRIDGES Weekly, 26 June 2002) now has seven complainants (the EC, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand) and 14 third parties (Brazil, Chinese Taipei, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Canada, China, EC, Mexico, Turkey, Venezuela and Cuba). Under Dispute Settlement rules, Members can be both complainants and reserve third party rights simultaneously. The US maintains that its action of imposing tariffs of up to 30 percent on a range of steel products in March 2002, citing bankruptcies and job losses in the steel sector, was legitimate and WTO-consistent. The EC and other countries differ. They insist that there is no evidence that there has been a rise in imports or that US domestic industry has been damaged by imports. They are also upset that Mexico and Canada — the US’ partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement — have been excluded from the measures. The EC, Japan and Korea welcomed the establishment of a single panel on 3 June to hear the dispute. Panellists for the case have not yet been selected. This is likely to be contentious given the high stakes involved. Upon selection of the panellists, the Members may have to wait for up to a year for the panel report.
United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products - Request for the Establishment of a Panel by New Zealand, WT/DS258/9; "New Zealand joins formal case against U.S. steel tariffs," ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8 July 2002.