RE: The more outlandish “estimates” in this article are unattributed, and the less outrageous come from an organisation with an agenda that does not match that of the reader.
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.
On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America’s WTO tariff-rate commitments.
The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.
After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.
In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.
See here:
http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/nov/11wto.htm
and here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/usa.wto1
We could have a repeat of that in a few years.
You are talking past my comments because you seem to have conflated what I said with, well, I just don’t even know what!