Anti-dumping or countervailing duties instituted by unfair trade (e.g. B foreign prices and government subsidies) or other national laws are not covered by the free trade agreement (Fn. 7-1). In March 2003, the only anti-dumping duty instituted by the United States on Singapore products applied to ball bearings. (22) Several factors mitigate the fact that the free trade agreement between the United States and Singapore leads to significant trade creation or trade diversion. Singapore and the United States already have low trade barriers; the two markets are separated by large distances; and Singapore`s economy is relatively small (population of 4.4 million in an area that is about 3.5 times larger than the District of Columbia). Yet the country has a significant economy, with a GDP of about $88 billion, about the same size as Oregon or South Carolina, and bilateral trade with the United States of about $30 billion. However, this trade accounts for only 1.6% of total U.S. trade, or $1.982 billion.
The free trade agreement between the United States and Singapore therefore does not appear likely to create a significant amount of new exports or imports of products to the United States. On January 30, 2003, the White House informed Congress of its intention to enter into the free trade agreement. (1) As required under the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA or Fast-Track) procedures, this notification took place more than 90 days prior to the signing of the agreement on May 6, 2003. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) published the text of the agreement and the corresponding letters on its website. (2) Of the 31 trade policy committees in the administration, only the Labour Advisory Committee did not support the free trade agreement, although some of the Committee`s reports were neutral, did not obtain a majority opinion, were divided on certain provisions, or expressed differing views. (3) In general, some point out that these provisions related to the free trade agreement may limit current and future congresses if they consider a revision of the immigration law for business personnel, contract dealers, internal transfers and professionals, as the United States may violate the free trade agreement.