« American Manufacturing Slowly Rotting Away: How Industries DieA Global Call for Sharing and Justice »

The Obama Administration's Clueless Trade Diplomacy

February 23rd, 2011

Ian Fletcher

Obama clearly doesn't get it yet on trade agreements.

Despite the fact that every major American trade agreement since NAFTA has worsened America's trade balance, he actually seems to think he can improve America's export performance by going for more, starting with a free-trade agreement with South Korea.

So it's worth taking a hard look at why America's trade diplomacy is so chronically dysfunctional. I mean, if the trade agreements our government signs are so disadvantageous to the U.S., why does it sign them in the first place?

The obvious answer is, of course, special interest pressures. Realpolitik in the name of the national interest is a joke; what we have is multinational corporations headquartered in the U.S. passing themselves off as American and calling the shots.

Even worse, many of the largest American companies are now so dependent on their overseas operations, and thus so vulnerable to pressures by foreign governments, that they have become outright Trojan horses with respect to American trade policy. As former congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), for years one of the outstanding critics of trade giveaways in Congress, has put it.

    For practical purposes, many of the multinational corporations have become Chinese corporations.

At some point, the nationalists and the capitalists in the Republican party will necessarily come to blows over this. Tea Party, are you listening?

The more profound answer, however, is that our government signs these treaties simply because it does not take their dangers seriously. Why? Because of its underlying economic assumptions about the universal benevolence of free trade. This is the deeper kind of special-interest corruption: when special interests are so entrenched in a society that the society has lost the power to distinguish their interests from those of society at large. The universities where America's diplomats, economists, politicians, and journalists are trained are, of course, funded (and their boards of trustees filled with) the same corporate interests which also lobby directly for "free" trade. So what do you expect?

This corruption is often quite subtle, as befits a rich developed nation. It is not Soviet-style indoctrination. For example, the naïve assumptions about economics that our trade diplomats have rarely consist in outright intellectual fanaticism about the economics of free trade. That is easy enough to find in academia and the strange wonderland of the editorial pages, but quite rare in our trade negotiators and diplomatic service generally. Instead, there is usually a hazy, almost undergraduate, sense that "economics says free trade is best" which renders our trade negotiators helpless in the face of corporate pressures for more trade agreements.

This helplessness is worsened by inexperience and a lack of institutional memory about past negotiations. And when our trade negotiators work to open foreign markets, they usually do so willy-nilly, with no sense that some industries are more strategic than others. This assumption is profoundly wrong, as it ultimately comes down to the idea that all industries are alike in their value for our economic future. This was epitomized by an infamous (and subsequently denied) comment by Michael J. Boskin, George H.W. Bush's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers:

    It doesn't matter whether America exports computer chips, potato chips, or poker chips! They're all just chips!

This is, of course, nonsense, as has been pointed out even by mainstream establishmentarian economists like Laura D'Andrea Tyson, chairwoman of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, who observed that:

    The composition of our production and trade does influence our economic well-being. Technology-intensive industries, in particular, make special contributions to the long-term health of the American economy. A dollar's worth of shoes may have the same effect on the trade balance as a dollar's worth of computers. But...the two do not have the same effect on employment, wages, labor skills, productivity, and research--all major determinants of our economic health.

The Obama administration doesn't seem to grasp this. Apparently, it's just fine for America to sell Korea beef and they can sell us cars. Like a well-behaved colony, it's our job to be a captive market and supplier of raw materials.

More generally in our trade diplomacy, superficial attempts at hard bargaining occasionally reflect some well-organized industry that has managed to flag the attention of Congress, but are mainly just posturing. America's trade bureaucrats have little sense of loyalty to American industry or understanding that their efforts must ultimately be judged by quantifiable success in America's trade balances.

Supremely confident in its own brilliant trade performance, the U.S. government spends billions trying to help other nations improve theirs. In 2008, the United States spent $2.3 billion on its various Aid for Trade programs, and it remains official U.S. policy to be "the largest single-country provider of trade-related assistance, including development of trade-related physical infrastructure." The 9/11 attacks intensified this effort; apparently what Osama really wants is to export.

American efforts to negotiate reasonable trade agreements are often handicapped by the fact that some American politicians have an unrealistic idea of international law. International law is not like ordinary civil or criminal law because there exists no sovereign to compel the obedience of nations. Instead, it is analogous to the rules of a game of stickball being played by children on a vacant lot: its rules only mean anything insofar as they are enforced by the players upon themselves. Obviously, as in the case of stickball, the players will enforce certain rules, because that is the only way they can have a game. So international law is not a completely vacuous concept, as some cynics suggest. But the players also won't enforce any rule grossly to the disadvantage of any particularly powerful player.

This means that the Anglo-American legal framework Americans tend to take for granted simply does not exist internationally, and therefore that a trading model based upon neutral and consistent enforcement of legal obligations is not feasible. There is no way to take power politics out of trade, which means that there is no way to leave everything in the hands of a neutral and rational free market once we but construct the right international legal machinery--otherwise known as the WTO.

On some level, I have to assume that many of the big power players are well aware of this. But since this puppet show aggrandizes both the relentlessly power-accreting bureaucrats of the WTO and the multinationals, neither has any reason to let the cat out of the bag in public. So the game goes on, with a quasi-fictional legal order implementing fantasy economics.

And at the middle of it all, the president, who, despite being a serious scholar of such subjects as, say, constitutional law, appears to have no economic ideas of his own, seems blissfully unaware of all this. He just does what his Clinton-retread advisors tell him to do.

How appropriate that in the America of 2011, even our economic policy has been outsourced.

-###-

Ian Fletcher is Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a nationwide grass-roots organization dedicated to fixing America’s trade policies and comprising representatives from business, agriculture, and labor. He was previously Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, a Washington think tank founded in 1933 and before that, an economist in private practice serving mainly hedge funds and private equity firms. Educated at Columbia University and the University of Chicago, he lives in San Francisco. He is the author of Free Trade Doesn't Work, 2011 Edition: What Should Replace It and Why. | www.freetradedoesntwork.com

No feedback yet

Voices

Voices

  • Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic The 2018 Skripal Attack Case The current orchestrated Western policy of total Russophobia, directed by Collective West, can be recorded to start by the British Cabinet of Theresa May – the focal servant-dog to US global…
  • By Sally Dugman This proactive Palestinian Pulverizers of humans, D. Trump who is indirectly responsible for the deaths of many thousands of Palestinian people of all ages, has no standing to say something like this utterly stupid statement about Putin:…
  • Tracy Turner When the Republic Betrays, the Body Must Answer Protest is not a right—it is a judgment passed upon power. A corrupt state standing above law and beyond justice forfeits its legitimacy, and we, the people, are compelled to answer—not with…
  • Tracy Turner The Reclamation of the Republic When, in the Course of human events, it shall become absolutely necessary for the People to dissolve the political ties which have united them to a government that has betrayed its trust to obtain their…
  • Tracy Turner SMELE's (Slow-Motion-Extinction-Level-Events). Not yet common in academia, but it should be. I. Introduction: The Timebombs We Ignore "Not with a bang but a bureaucratic shrug, the world ends." - Revisionist reading of Eliot by the…
  • By David Swanson I wish U.S. academics would spend less time fantasizing choices between various murders with trollies, or playing games with theories about how greedy robots might do diplomacy, and more time on the impeachment problem. The United…
  • Cathy Smith Hidden Bombshells in Trump’s “Big Bodacious Pill” “The most dangerous place to be is between power and its reckoning.” —Rewritten maxim of Beltway survival In the dark guts of Trump’s 2025 legislative monolith—cheekily christened the Big…
  • Robert David A global exposé of how corporations distort science, erase truth, and turn human death into quarterly growth. I. Introduction: When Truth Becomes a Liability In an age when algorithms dictate belief and lobbyists author legislation, truth…
  • Robert David Polluters don’t just dump toxins. They dump stories—engineered by billion-dollar PR firms. They Poisoned the Planet—Then Hired Spin Doctors to Make You Forget When a chemical spill poisons a town, when a pipeline ruptures in a fireball,…
  • By David Swanson, World BEYOND War Switzerland got that way through NEUTRALITY Remarks at Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, June 26-27, 2025 in Geneva, Switzerland. I grew up in a town in the United States that…
July 2025
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

  XML Feeds

Social CMS
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted articles and information about environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. This news and information is displayed without profit for educational purposes, in accordance with, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Thepeoplesvoice.org is a non-advocacy internet web site, edited by non-affiliated U.S. citizens. editor
ozlu Sozler GereksizGercek Hava Durumu Firma Rehberi Hava Durumu Firma Rehberi E-okul Veli Firma Rehberi