由 jpichiban Mon, 03 Feb 2025 13:08:43 GMT
U.S. President Donald Trump hold up an executive order, “Unleashing prosperity through deregulation,” that he signed in the Oval Office on January 31, 2025 in Washington, D.C., while also speaking to reporters about tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico.Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images News | Getty ImagesPresident Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China — which he justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to combat the fentanyl crisis —makes good on a running threat to do so. It may appear bold to some or as an attempt to “negotiate” by others, but for many it is legally questionable, economically risky, and geopolitically shortsighted.While America’s opioid epidemic is serious, tragic and certainly demands greater attention and more urgent action from the federal government, it is important to acknowledge the crisis has not gone unaddressed. In fact, I served on a bipartisan commission established under Section 7221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 that was set up to examine all aspects of the synthetic opioid threat to the United States, specifically ways that the federal government can stem the illegal flow of these drugs into the United States. The commission produced a report with a long list of things that the federal government should undertake, and it focused on the challenges from both Mexico and China as well as some other emerging countries like India that could pose a future challenge on these issues. Despite the wide range of recommendations and months of discussion, the linkage of trade policy to narcotics enforcement was never seriously discussed, and many would argue that the linkages not only set a dangerous precedent but could in fact reduce the willingness of countries like Mexico and specifically China to cooperate as we seek to address this serious challenge. The move risks destabilizing fragile diplomatic efforts, potentially undermines constitutional prerogatives, authorities, and principles on trade, and threatens global supply chains critical to U.S. businesses.Emergency powers are not a presidential blank checkWe must be clear about the use of IEEPA as the instrument to levy these tariffs. It does indeed grant the president emergency powers to regulate economic transactions in the face of national security threats. However, this authority is not a blank check to the president. In fact, trade scholars note that the National Emergencies Act requires the president to formally declare an emergency, then engage in discussions and consultations with Congress, and publish the emergency proclamation in the Federal Register — steps that cannot be skipped. The Trump administration may take all these steps, but as of the weekend there was no indication that any of these steps have or will be undertaken.To be clear, a fact sheet, like the one issued by the administration this weekend, is insufficient to meet the requirements of the IEEPA. Without following these legal protocols, the tariffs are vulnerable to legal challenges, with a high likelihood of being blocked by the courts. Businesses facing sudden shifts in tariffs should brace for more limbo, uncertainty, and potentially lots of legal ping-pong, where policies are announced, enjoined, and reversed on wash-rinse-and-repeat — creating uncertainty that markets despise.A few Democratic senators moved to address the president’s action shortly before he followed through on the threat, but it would need support from more Democrats and, of course, Republicans. Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) brought forward the Stopping Tariffs on Allies and Bolstering Legislative Exercise of Trade Policy Act on Thursday, which would require the president to elaborate on the decision to impose tariffs on U.S. allies and trading partners and how the tariffs would impact the U.S. economy and foreign policy priorities.The problem with punishing alliesBeyond domestic l 许多贸易专家认为，对加拿大和墨西哥加征关税可能违反了《美墨加协定》（USMCA），该协定旨在消除大多数关税并建立公平的争端解决机制。在未穷尽USMCA规定的法律救济途径的情况下，单方面对加拿大和墨西哥加征关税，会削弱与主要贸易伙伴之间的信任。对企业而言，这可能且很可能意味着报复性关税，其中一些已被加拿大和墨西哥暗示，目标直指美国敏感行业——从农业到汽车——影响供应链和消费者价格。将美国最大的贸易伙伴变成政治出气筒，对商业不利，对国家安全更糟。
最难以理解的是，将关税与芬太尼流动挂钩，并威胁墨西哥和中国——更不用说在芬太尼流动中作用微乎其微的加拿大——如何能实现阻止芬太尼流动这一非常值得称道的目标。在我看来，政策方法应有一定的现实和实际可能性来实现政策目标。在此情况下，这些行动反映出对复杂动态的根本误解。
先看墨西哥。毒品贸易不仅仅是政府的失败；它是一场对抗卡特尔集团的战斗，这些集团往往比地方当局更强大，部分原因是美国制造的高威力武器源源不断地流入。特朗普的要求实际上可能推动墨西哥政府与武装精良、致命的犯罪卡特尔集团展开热战，破坏国家稳定，加剧该政策本意要解决的边境危机。
至于中国，情况同样脆弱。讽刺的是，2023年APEC峰会期间，拜登总统与习近平会晤的少数“成果”之一就是达成合作遏制芬太尼前体的协议。然而，以芬太尼控制为名对中国加征关税，特朗普可能破坏这一外交进展。中国不太可能对威胁做出积极回应。如果有什么影响，可能会减少合作，因为中国认为在胁迫下做任何事都没有实际价值。
不要忽视显而易见的事实：真正的危机在美国境内。仅2022年，就有超过75,000名美国人死于芬太尼过量。执法部门查获的芬太尼足以多次杀死每个美国人。这不仅仅是供应问题——更是需求问题。
任何关税都无法遏制成瘾。需要的是一个全面的策略，包括成瘾治疗、心理健康服务、公共卫生宣传和社区干预。企业比大多数人都更了解理解和管理供需曲线关系的必要性，解决复杂问题也需要政府承认这一点，并不仅仅使用生硬的手段。如果本届政府希望政府更像私营部门那样行事——我并不总是赞同这一想法——那么在此情况下确实适用。
自11月以来，商界可能自我安慰，认为特朗普是在虚张声势，或是在谈判，或试图获取让步，这可能是真的，也可能不是。然而，现在的问题是以什么代价，以及通过什么样的权衡？2018年第一次贸易战的教训应该已经明确，其他国家有自主权（有些国家，如中国，比其他国家更多），而小规模开始的事情通常会演变成一场竞相逐底的比赛，报复和以牙还牙的反应失控。贸易战就像热战一样容易开始，但往往难以控制或结束，其成本和权衡往往比它们试图解决的状况更糟。打击芬太尼至关重要，每一条失去的生命都太多。但关税不是应对危机的工具。关税是对美国公司的税收，也是对美国消费者的税收。 onsumers. They disrupt supply chains, create market volatility, and introduce policy unpredictability. Weaponizing trade policy for unrelated issues —whether immigration, drugs, or security — erodes America’s credibility as a reliable economic partner. Most importantly and unfortunately, they will not stem the flow of fentanyl.Smart policy requires more than tough talk. It demands more policy rigor, diplomatic finesse, and a clear-eyed view and understanding that there are both supply and demand dynamics at work when trying to address the fentanyl crisis. The business community, and the American public, must not lose sight of the risks that this action will create. Congress has the power to take back its delegated constitutional powers on trade, granted through the Commerce Clause Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. All businesses and Americans will be wise to dust off the document and demand that our political leaders follow it.—By Dewardric McNeal, managing director and senior policy analyst at Longview Global, and a CNBC Contributor watch nowVIDEO6:2106:21Tariffs are the only negative of Trump’s economic agenda, says Wharton’s Jeremy SiegelClosing Bell
原文链接：https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/03/op-ed-i-know-whats-needed-to-end-fentanyl-crisis-tariffs-arent-it.html