In its lead front page article yesterday the Financial Times reported that "U.S. lodges WTO case in China dispute". The article goes on to inform that the U.S. together with the European Union lodged a joint complaint with the World Trade Organization over China's export quotas on raw materials. The issue, as seen by both the U.S. and the European Union, was clearly placed into focus by Baroness Ashton, the European Trade Commissioner who was quoted as saying, "The Chinese restrictions on raw materials distort competition and increase global prices, making things even more difficult for our companies."
If this issue is worthy of initiating an action against China, why have similar steps not been taken against OPEC, especially Saudi Arabia OPEC's putative leader, as well the other members of the cartel. Certainly their constraints on the availability of crude oil through their collusion in establishing production quotas grievously distort competition and increase global prices.
Paucity of action under the Bush administration was to be expected, given that administration's ties to the oil industry. Here was an administration whose leadership seemed more interested in doing Saudi Arabia's bidding than looking after the interests of the nation. Even when Congress tried to act forcefully to permit the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to initiate legal action against the likes of Saudi Arabia's national oil company Aramco and other OPEC national oil companies, the Bush White House did all it could to abort these efforts. This in spite of a clear Congressional consensus that would have stripped OPEC members of their "sovereign immunity."
The White House made it clear that it would veto any and all "NOPEC" legislation (the name given to the bill that had OPEC collusion in its sights), and sat happily by as the price of oil shot up to $147/barrel thereby helping to crush the economy, together with a dysfunctional and out of touch Department of Energy mumbling about oil prices being a consequence of "market forces."
The stumbling block conveniently invoked by the White House then was, as mentioned, "sovereign immunity". The same convenient rationale that permitted President Bush to block the release of a 28-page classified section of the 2003 joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept 11 attacks. According to the New York Times yesterday "Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists, but May Never Be Used in 9/11 Suit," the secret section of the report is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers. According to the Times, the Saudis claim that they urged it be made public but President Bush refused to do so. Stage management, or real concern for U.S. interests? We may never know. But we needn't forget that at the time Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to Washington, had virtually unlimited access to the Oval Office and his good friend President George W. Bush.
In the years thereafter the Bush administration moved heaven and earth to sponsor Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO and succeeded when Saudi Arabia was admitted to the august body in December 2005.
The days of Bush are over except for cleaning up the mess he left behind. Certainly President Obama has enough on his plate, but if time and energy can be directed at initiating process against China because of export trade constraints, then certainly action against the OPEC cartel is long overdue. It is time to bring the NOPEC Bill to the fore once again, and this time with a determination to follow through successfully.