(Source: "Shanghai Securities News" 2025-03-04)

Since the new U.S. government took office, it has used tariffs as the primary tool of its economic and diplomatic strategies, using it as a leverage tool to coerce its opponents into accepting the policy goals proposed by the United States. On February 1, Eastern Time, the U.S. government invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and announced additional tariffs on Chinese products exported to the United States, using the so-called fentanyl and other issues as an excuse. On March 3, Eastern Time, the United States announced that it would impose a further 10% tariff on Chinese products.

The real intention of the US government is to use tariff weapons to coerce foreign countries to obey the United States. The U.S. government has repeatedly announced additional tariffs. Its policy consideration is mainly to use additional tariffs as a leverage tool to coerce relevant countries to accept the conditions proposed by the United States. Faced with the U.S. government’s threat of tariffs, some victim countries attempted to make concessions to the U.S. in exchange for exemptions. But even if it compromises, it will not win the US government's change of heart. Instead, it will only allow it to push its limits. Judging from the development of the situation, the relevant countries’ actual investment in government resources to manage the fentanyl issue is far from satisfying the appetite of the US government.

China has always adhered to the correct position of communication and cooperation on the issue of fentanyl. The Chinese government has actively responded to the concerns of the United States. As early as 2019, it was the first in the world to formally schedule all fentanyl-like substances into categories. The progress made in Sino-US anti-drug cooperation in recent years is obvious to all. However, the U.S. government has always ignored the objective facts and insisted on using the so-called fentanyl issue to exert pressure and blackmail with tariffs. This tariff war initiated by the US government has seriously disrupted normal international economic and w88 exchanges, damaged the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises and consumers, endangered the economic sovereignty and national security of other countries, and undermined the multilateral trading system and the world economic order. Regarding the U.S. government's tariff measures, the Chinese government actively used WTO rules to initiate lawsuits and refuted U.S. unilateralism at the WTO.

U.S. domestic laws cannot be expected to regulate the abuse of executive power. According to IEEPA, the President of the United States has the authority to declare a national emergency and adopt economic restrictions without the approval of the U.S. Congress. This means that under the structure of the separation of powers in the United States, the power of the President of the United States is not subject to checks and balances by the legislative and judicial branches. The president's power to impose external tariffs is not legally or de facto subject to domestic supervision, which leads to the possibility of abuse of executive power. Nonetheless, due to inherent flaws in U.S. domestic law, a few politicians can put their personal will above the public interest, leading to the abuse of power. In this dilemma of "evil law being equal to law", it is impossible for the victimized countries and companies to expect justice and relief through the domestic supervision and power checks and balances of the United States.

The WTO is currently unable to provide timely and effective remedies for the wrong practices of the United States. The U.S. government's tariff increase measures violate the most-favored-nation treatment obligation in Article 1 and the tariff binding obligation in Article 2 of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and w88. In response to U.S. tariff measures that clearly violate WTO rules and cause serious negative impacts, China and relevant members have the right to sue to the dispute settlement mechanism. However, the U.S. government will not accept the panel’s ruling when the U.S. has paralyzed the Appellate Body. The WTO's ruling against the United States imposes more moral pressure and is difficult to produce practical results.

It is necessary and legitimate for China to take countermeasures as a last resort. From the perspective of general international law, China's imposition of additional tariffs and other measures against the United States is a countermeasure against internationally wrongful acts and has a solid basis for legitimacy. From an effect point of view, in the absence of collective relief for illegal acts, the self-help relief of the injured country is the last and feasible relief. China's reasonable, beneficial, and measured countermeasures can not only encourage more people in the United States to join the camp against the U.S. government's tariffs, but also win support from more countries in the international community, thus forming a joint effort to contain the U.S. government's unpopular unilateral measures.

A tariff war will not achieve the goals of making America great. In the history of the United States, the U.S. government introduced the McKinley Tariff Act in 1890 and the Smoot-Hawley Act in 1930 to impose tariffs on foreign countries, both of which triggered large-scale retaliatory measures from other countries, which eventually had a backlash effect and led to the Great Recession of the U.S. economy. The U.S. government's tariff measures not only harm the interests of foreign companies exporting to the U.S., but also cause significant losses to U.S. importers, downstream industries, and consumers. A large number of U.S. domestic companies oppose the imposition of additional tariffs. The U.S. government's insistence on imposing additional tariffs will only lead to countermeasures and trigger a w88 war that will harm domestic industries and consumers at the same time.

In response to the U.S.’s renewed announcement of additional tariffs on fentanyl, the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce has issued a statement stating that China is strongly dissatisfied and resolutely opposed and will take countermeasures to firmly safeguard its rights and interests. The United States should face up to China's position, immediately withdraw its unreasonable unilateral tariff measures that harm others and not benefit itself, and return to the right track of properly resolving differences through equal dialogue as soon as possible.

（Author: Researcher at the National Institute for Opening up to the Outside World, w88 casino, Vice President of the Institute of Foreign-related Rule of Law, and Professor Chen Weidong of the w88 casino of Law)

Attachment: Original link