Trade War Heats Up Over Fish and Peas
Geneva: In the high-stakes arena of global trade, a tense showdown is unfolding as Canada drags China before the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), accusing its economic giant of slapping unfair tariffs on Canadian agricultural and fisheries products.
At a special meeting here today, WTO members waded into the fray, weighing Canada’s request for a dispute panel to scrutinise China’s additional import duties—tariffs that have sent shockwaves through Canadian farms and fishing fleets. Dubbed DS636: China — Additional Import Duties on Certain Agricultural and Fishery Products from Canada, this clash is more than a trade spat; it’s a test of international rules in an era of escalating economic brinkmanship. Canada’s grievance centers on China’s punitive measures, including a crippling 100% tariff on canola seed oil, canola meal, and peas, alongside a 25% levy on select fish, seafood, and pork products, all enacted on March 20 following a Chinese “antidiscrimination investigation.” The stakes are high, with Canadian exporters reeling and global trade norms hanging in the balance.
Canada argues that China’s tariffs, imposed without prior WTO recourse or Dispute Settlement Body authorisation, flout the rules of fair play. These duties, Canada contends, are a unilateral power grab, disrupting market access for its agricultural and fisheries sectors. On April 23, Canadian and Chinese officials held consultations, hoping to defuse the tension, but the talks collapsed, leaving Canada with no choice but to escalate. Ottawa’s representatives didn’t mince words at the DSB meeting, stressing that China’s actions threaten the livelihoods of Canadian producers while undermining the multilateral trade system. Yet, Canada extended an olive branch, signalling openness to further dialogue with Beijing, provided it swiftly restores full market access for its battered canola, fish, and pork industries. The plea carries urgency: these tariffs aren’t just numbers—they’re a chokehold on rural communities and coastal economies, from Manitoba’s canola fields to Nova Scotia’s fishing harbours.
China, for its part, pushed back hard, expressing regret over Canada’s move to seek a dispute panel. Beijing’s defence is unyielding: its tariffs are legitimate, born of a “fair, impartial, and transparent” domestic investigation under Chinese law. The measures, China insists, are a justified response to Canada’s own discriminatory restrictions on Chinese imports—restrictions Beijing claims ignored widespread opposition. Labelling Canada’s panel request premature, China argued that the dispute isn’t ripe for formal adjudication, hinting at a preference for bilateral talks over WTO scrutiny. This stance reveals a deeper tension: China’s assertion of sovereignty in trade policy versus the WTO’s rules-based order, a clash that could ripple across global markets. The DSB, caught in the middle, took note of the heated exchange and agreed to revisit the issue if Canada presses forward, keeping the door open for further escalation.
This dispute isn’t just about tariffs; it’s a microcosm of broader geopolitical currents. Canada’s push for a panel reflects growing frustration with China’s trade tactics, seen by some as retaliatory muscle-flexing in response to political frictions, including Canada’s alignment with Western sanctions. China’s rebuttal, meanwhile, underscores its resolve to wield domestic law as a shield against external pressure. The canola and seafood at the heart of this row are more than commodities—they’re symbols of economic sovereignty and global interdependence. The WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body, comprising all 164 members, remains the crucible for such conflicts, its “airgram” meeting notices signalling the pulse of global trade disputes. The next regular DSB meeting, slated for June 23, 2025, looms as a potential flashpoint, with Canada likely to renew its push for a panel if China doesn’t budge. Another meeting notice, circulated for the same date, underscores the DSB’s relentless workload, juggling legal battles that shape the flow of goods across borders.
China’s imposition of these tariffs fits a broader pattern of aggressive trade measures that have intensified global tensions. Since 2018, China has frequently deployed tariffs as a tool of economic coercion, notably against Australia, when it imposed duties of up to 80% on barley and wine in 2020 following Canberra’s call for a COVID-19 origins inquiry. Similarly, in 2019, China restricted Canadian canola exports, citing pest concerns, though many saw it as retaliation for Canada’s detention of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. These actions, often justified under domestic laws like China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of 2021, bypass WTO protocols, prompting disputes like DS587 (Australia-China) and the current DS636. The 100% tariffs on Canadian canola and 25% on fish and pork mirror this playbook, targeting key exports—Canada’s canola trade with China was worth $2.5 billion annually before restrictions began—while signalling Beijing’s readiness to flex its economic might. The ongoing tariff war, rooted in tit-for-tat measures, has seen the U.S., EU, and Canada impose counter-tariffs on Chinese goods, such as 25% U.S. duties on $200 billion of Chinese imports in 2018. This dispute’s relevance lies in its challenge to the WTO’s authority: China’s unilateral actions risk eroding the multilateral framework, pushing Canada to seek redress through a system already strained by reform delays and U.S. objections to panel appointments.
The implications are profound. For Canada, a favourable ruling could pry open China’s market, offering relief to farmers and fishers battered by the tariffs. For China, a loss might challenge its ability to impose trade measures without WTO oversight, a precedent Beijing is keen to avoid. Beyond the two nations, the outcome will test the WTO’s relevance in an era of fractured global trade. As both sides dig in, the world watches, knowing that the fate of canola fields and fishing boats could redefine the rules of the game.
– global bihari bureau
