A Renaissance for U.S. Trade Policy?
The Bush administration's recent protectionist measures have attracted intense international criticism. U.S. backtracking on free trade could give other countries an excuse to do likewise. But critics should note that those measures also made it easier for Bush to win "fast-track" negotiating authority from Congress, providing the political base necessary for further liberalization.
C. Fred Bergsten is Director of the Institute for International Economics. He is former Assistant Secretary for International Affairs at the Treasury Department (1977-81) and former Assistant for International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council (1969-71).Copyright (c) 2002 by the Institute for International Economics.
LIBERALIZATION IN RETREAT
U.S. trade policy has been facing widespread criticism around the world. Under threat of congressional action, the Bush administration initiated an investigation of steel imports, imposed tariffs of up to 30 percent on a sizable portion of foreign steel shipments to the United States, and launched an effort to organize global steel production -- all within the past year. The administration and Congress have agreed to roll back some apparel imports from the Caribbean and Central America. Sharp new tariffs have been slapped on lumber imports from Canada, a nation with which the United States supposedly has free trade. Both Congress and the president have backed a new farm bill that perpetuates substantial subsidies for U.S. agriculture, even though the United States has railed for years against such practices abroad. All these steps have reinforced the concern that America is pursuing a unilateralist rather than a globally cooperative foreign policy.
Moreover, these protectionist initiatives have surfaced at a time when the global trading system is already under severe strain. U.S. trade retaliation against Europe is still in place from a previous dispute over beef. Europe is considering up to $4 billion of counteraction against U.S. tax subsidies for exports -- a practice found illegal under the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) -- and is fighting Washington's new steel measures. Last year, Japan and China engaged in a cycle of retaliation and counterretaliation. There has been continuing concern about trade wars among the largest economies, and the recent U.S. actions are widely viewed as throwing fuel on the fire. U.S. backtracking on liberalization gives other countries an excuse to do likewise and reduces the prospects for future reduction of barriers...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
U.S. tariff policy has evolved into something astonishingly tough on the poor, both at home and abroad. This scandalous situation would not be hard to fix.
Protectionist sentiment on Capitol Hill threatens to scuttle Washington's free-trade agenda. A bipartisan consensus on trade could emerge, but only if the White House and the Democrats can reach a compromise on labor issues.
With China's economic clout growing rapidly, Americans are accusing Beijing of every offense from currency manipulation to crooked trade policies. None of these charges has much merit, but they have increased the probability of a U.S.-Chinese trade war that would do considerable damage to both sides.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.