ICS concerned over US policies impact on trade

Paul Gunton
Paul Gunton
ShipInsight

14 November 2018


Worries over the impact of US foreign policy on shipping were expressed by ICS Chairman, Esben Poulsson, speaking in Tokyo.

Poulsson’s address highlighted serious concerns about the challenge presented by the US ‘to the proven benefits of multilateralism and the existing global trading order underpinned by a system of international rules and norms which has brought peace and prosperity since World War Two’.

Ics

‘The view that international trade can be seen as some kind of zero sum game is demonstrably false’ said Poulsson. He did however, acknowledge that the U.S. has legitimate concerns about the policies of some of its trading partners, concerns which to some extent ICS also shares, particularly with regard to China and South Korea’s possible contribution towards overcapacity in shipping.

‘But ICS genuinely believes that these are issues which can best be resolved through continued co-operation and dialogue, working through those international institutions which the US and others have successfully helped to establish and of which governments such as China and South Korea are generally supportive, acknowledging the authority and jurisdiction of these global institutions.’

‘In particular’ he said ‘this includes the World Trade Organization. We note that of more than 100 trade complaints which the US has so far brought to the WTO for adjudication – more cases than put forward by any other country – the US has won over 90% of these.’

Poulsson said it was easy to overlook that demand for maritime transport had actually increased by around 30% since 2008, with the annual volume of cargo carried by sea now exceeding 10 billion tonnes. ‘Sluggish growth in many OECD economies has largely been compensated by the impressive growth in demand for shipping from China and other emerging economies which now account for over 50% of global shipping demand.’

Poulsson said ‘The influence of the shipping industry on the geopolitical and trade policies which governments might decide to pursue is in reality somewhat limited. But as the servant of world trade, I do think our great industry has a duty to explain the negative implications of policies that may seriously damage long term economic development.’