On February 1, the United States government announced a new 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports under the pretext of combatting the proliferation of the opioid fentanyl. The following day, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry stated that China firmly deplored and opposed this move and would take necessary countermeasures to defend its legitimate rights and interests.
Indeed, a new tariff is counterproductive not only when it comes to efforts to rein in the production and distribution of fentanyl but also for bilateral trade relations.
The US is one of the largest consumers of fentanyl-based drugs in the world and in recent years, their abuse has exacerbated drug addiction and caused many deaths. The crisis has its roots in longstanding opioid use patterns in the country, the profit-driven nature of the US pharmaceutical industry, inadequate public awareness and ineffective social governance.
China has some of the world’s toughest counternarcotics policies and laws. In the spirit of humanity and goodwill, China has given support to the US’s response to this issue. At the US’s request, China announced back in 2019 the decision to officially schedule fentanyl-related substances as a class. China has conducted counternarcotics cooperation with the US side in such fields as the scheduling of drug-related substances, intelligence sharing, and cooperation on individual cases.
Yet, the US still insists on dramatising the issue and accuses China of driving its fentanyl crisis. But scapegoating other countries for a domestic crisis will not make the problem disappear; tariffs certainly will not.
The unilateral sanctions imposed by the US risk weakening its anti-drug cooperation with China and may also force fentanyl precursor transactions to be conducted on the black market or through third countries, making law enforcement even more difficult.
Furthermore, these unilateral sanctions imposed violate the basic principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO), of which both China and the US are members. According to the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – the precursor to the WHO – trade shall be conducted in a non-discriminatory manner.
However, the unilateral sanctions imposed by the US on specific countries or enterprises essentially constitute discriminatory treatment. This undermines fair competition among WTO members and poses a potential threat to multilateral trade rules.
Additionally, the US practices violate the principle of national treatment laid out in Article III of GATT. The article requires that imported products must not be accorded unfavourable treatment based on their origin after entering the territory of a WTO member. The sanctions the US imposed may directly restrict the import of legal drugs or their precursor chemicals, resulting in discrimination against imported goods from China.
The US may seek to justify its unilateral tariffs by citing threats to public health or national security, which under GATT can be used to justify tariffs. But to invoke GATT’s Article XX (“General Exceptions”) or Article XXI (“Security Exceptions”), the US would have to demonstrate not only the relevance and necessity of imposing tariffs to protect public health or national security, but also the absence of other less trade-distorting and equally effective means. Factors such as the complexity of the fentanyl crisis and domestic demand make it difficult for the exceptions to be applied.
The frequent use of unilateral sanctions by the US not only violates the core rules of the WTO but also disrupts the international trade order and multilateral cooperation. In particular, abusing exception clauses may prompt other countries to question the fairness and efficacy of WTO rules. The possible retaliation in response to US tariffs from other WTO members could lead to a global trade conflict and encourage the trend towards fragmentation of the global trading system.
In the long run, the US sanctions will backfire at home as well. Higher tariffs will result in increased prices for imported goods, increasing the burden on American consumers and undercutting the competitiveness of US companies globally.
The US needs to view and solve its own fentanyl issue in an objective and rational way instead of threatening other countries with arbitrary tariff hikes. Reducing domestic demand for drugs and enhancing law enforcement cooperation can be effective solutions to the fentanyl crisis.
Trade and tariff wars have no winners. Pressuring or threatening China is not the right way to engage, as my country will firmly defend its legitimate rights and interests.
Keeping business ties between China and the US robust serves the fundamental interests of both countries and both peoples, and benefits global economic growth. China hopes the US will work with it to address concerns through equal-footed consultation, maintain the hard-won positive dynamics in counternarcotics cooperation, and jointly promote the steady, sound and sustainable growth of bilateral trade and economic ties.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
