President Obama has opened a potential trade war with China.  The President imposed high tariffs on tires imported from China.  Let us compare two reports about the story. 

The first report is from the New York Times:

The announcement seemed aimed at assuaging demands by organized labor for more protection against imports while also tamping down

labor’s expectations of a combative new stance toward China.

Mr. Obama is counting on unions to mobilize support in Congress and at the grass-roots level for his campaign to overhaul the health care system. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has weighed in with a formidable campaign, involving armies of people as well as media efforts and lobbying.

White House officials said they were merely invoking tools that the United States explicitly negotiated with China as part of its acceptance into the World Trade Organization.

“Our view is that enforcing trade laws is not protectionism,” said one senior White House official, who refused to be identified.

You can see the full story here.

The Financial Times put it another way:

. . . [P]ro-trade voices might argue that the president had no political choice. Given the stalemate on trade policy in the US, the president had to give labour groups an early victory. It is certainly difficult to find an economic rationale for the decision. The domestic tyre industry has multiple alternative markets to China from which to import tyres that are more competitive than the US, absent a dramatic restructuring of our industrial base. We may import fewer tyres from China, but this decision is not going to jumpstart moribund domestic tyre production. This is protectionism without the protection. Pure appeasement politics: calculated and cynical.

You can see the full story here.