Continuing painfully well-honed tactics from when it remained under wraps, the
aircraft manufacturer and its US rival Boeing both claimed victory,
extracting examples from the 1,000-page document to lob barbs in each
other’s direction.
But none of the interested parties lobbying the WTO emerges with much
credibility, while the dispute – now in its sixth year – undermines lectures
given to emerging countries on the need to liberalise their own economies.
Indeed, the WTO report was an exercise in futility. It concluded that European
governments have subsidised Airbus, owned by EADS, but on the other hand the
WTO did not establish that this caused injury to US industry or that it
undercut US manufacturers on price. Meanwhile, conclusions on the
counter-complaint by Europe about US subsidies to Boeing are due this month.
Eventual diplomatic resolution some time this decade remains the likely
outcome.
Nor does it appear to make much sense to discuss free trade in an duopolistic
industry that, like many others, would not exist without vast amounts of
government assistance. Aside from direct subsidies, civilian development has
always benefited from defence spending: the 747 jumbo jet, for instance, was
conceived as a military transport. And government can prove as much
hindrance as help – EADS’s losses on the long-delayed A400 military
airlifter may run into billions.
This WTO review merely serves to remind investors that such companies should
not be considered purely profit-maximising entities, and that governments in
Russia, China and Japan will feel justified to continue nurturing their own
aerospace industries.
Dit artikel is oorspronkelijk verschenen op z24.nl