In proposing new tariffs, President Trump claimed that America gives more than it gets from world trade. His critics claim that his approach, however, will precipitate other countries to increase their tariffs, undermining the international trading system, at great harm to America.

The present situation is better than a trade war; but that does not mean it is fair to America. The World Bank reports that China imposes more than twice the level of tariffs on U.S. products as the U.S. does on China’s, and Mexico almost three times. That is not fair.

The level of tariffs needs to be distinguished from the international system for dealing with tariffs. That system was set in place after the end of World War II with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. GATT was superseded by the World Trade Organization in 1995. Both had as a primary goal the elimination of trade wars. GATT and WTO took as given the level of tariffs existing at the time. Countries promised to meet regularly to try to lower tariffs. Countries also pledged that, if tariffs came down, the reductions would apply to all countries as much as to the “most favored nation.” If disagreements arose between countries over tariffs, rather than immediately retaliating, the aggrieved country would take its complaint to a neutral panel within the WTO. If the panel found a violation of a trade agreement had occurred, the panel would then announce what kind of response was proportional for the wronged country to take. That approach would prevent a vicious spiral of ever higher tariffs that often occurred before GATT was instituted.

Related Articles Proposition 15 will hurt homeowners, too

Donald Trump versus the military-industrial complex

Don’t lose sight of the progress made, problems ahead: Walter Williams

Papering over the stream of bad news

Hold off on Ruth Bader Ginsburg replacement: Tom Campbell Neither GATT nor WTO has been a complete success. For instance, non-tariff barriers were excluded from the original purview of GATT, and have only haltingly been added to discussions under WTO. However, as a mechanism for preventing trade wars that historically had caused economic recession in one country to infect the entire world, GATT and WTO have been tremendously successful. Trade disagreements have been fewer, and more contained, than at any other time of world history.

However, WTO does not prevent Europe from maintaining a tariff four times the level that the U.S. does, on the other’s cars. WTO only says one must give the same treatment the “most favored nation” receives. So Europe can continue with its higher tariffs on U.S. cars, so long as it does the same to Japanese cars.

That is where President Trump’s complaint is right. WTO and GATT stopped trade wars, but they didn’t reset tariffs at a fair level. Born in the immediate post WWII era, GATT consciously allowed other countries greater tariff levels than America insisted for itself. America’s was the only economy standing after WWII. America helped other countries protect their own industries through high tariffs until they could recover. We succeeded in that goal. Now that time is past, in President Trump’s view, and, I suspect, in the view of most Americans.

Where President Trump’s approach is wrong is to use national security as the reason to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. The WTO has a very narrow exception to allow a country to preserve a domestic industry vital for its national defense that would otherwise go out of business because of cheap foreign imports. America’s steel and aluminum industries are not in such dire condition. President Trump abuses the WTO system by using the national security exception. The danger is that other countries will likewise abuse what was intended as a narrow exception, and the carefully balanced system that prevents trade wars will fail.

Sometimes, the best threat is a withdrawn threat. President Trump’s tariff threats might cause Europe, China, Japan, and Mexico to lower their tariffs closer to what we impose on their goods. If our trading partners lower their tariffs, and the WTO system stays in place, Trump will have earned the title bargainer in chief.

Tom Campbell is a professor of economics and a professor of law at Chapman University. He has taught international trade law, and microeconomics. He served on the trade subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee during his five terms in Congress.