In the Aug. 13 editorial “Solar panel bickering,” The Post endorsed a short-sighted trade policy with China that is doomed to failure. The Post first acknowledged that China violated international trade law by using dumping and state subsidies to dominate solar production, injuring dozens of U.S. companies in the process. The U.S. government fully investigated these practices and imposed duties of 30 percent to 250 percent on Chinese solar cells and panels. Yet, The Post assigned the United States much of the blame for China’s retaliation against U.S. polysilicon producers.
China’s strategy of retaliation is nothing new. Time and again, when U.S. industries have enforced international trade rules against China — whether on steel, tires or solar — China’s response has been to retaliate against U.S. industries. And, every time, China’s retaliation has proved baseless. This month, the World Trade Organization emphatically struck down China’s trade retaliation against U.S. chicken-product producers.
The proper response to China’s retaliation is not to cave in. The European Union, when threatened with Chinese trade cases against its luxury car and wine industries, gave up its solar trade case in a weak settlement that may further damage its solar manufacturers. But surrender is not a trade policy, and the United States should not reward China for a strategy of retaliation.
Gordon Brinser, Hillsboro, Ore.
The writer, president of SolarWorld Industries America, is chairman of the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws.