(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Another U.S. Trade Deal that Puts America Last

Tags

apparel, CAFTA, Central America, Central Anerica Free Trade Agreement, dispute resolution, Dominican Republic, DR-CAFTA, free trade agreements, Guatemala, labor rights, legalism, offshoring, Trade, trade law, {What's Left of) Our Economy

To get a good idea of one of the biggest, and most neglected, failings of U.S. trade policy, look no farther than America’s near-neighbors in Central America. For earlier this month, a development on the labor rights front made clear the America Last approach Washington has taken toward the ways that disputes are handled under various trade agreements the United States has signed – in this case, the deal with six Central American countries plus the Dominican Republic (DR-CAFTA).

On June 14, an arbitration panel established by the dispute resolution chapter of the DR-CAFTA treaty ruled against the United States and for Guatemala in a long-running quarrel between the two signatories over labor rights practices in the latter. On the face of it, it’s hard to take seriously the arbiters’ conclusion that Guatemala indeed is not enforcing its own labor laws ostensibly aimed at safeguarding workers’ rights, but that this failure hasn’t affected bilateral trade flows. After all, in a world where its major industrial export industry – apparel – has to compete on price with super-low wage garment giants like China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh, keeping wages down is essential to the Guatemalan apparel sector’s very survival.

But the fundamental problem with this situation has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It has to do with the structure of the dispute-resolution process set up by the DR-CAFTA treaty, which is basically the same as that set up by all U.S. bilateral and regional free trade deals. Simply put, it bears absolutely no resemblance to economic or policy realities.

Two especially important and related points to keep in mind: First, when the DR-CAFTA deal was ratified by Congress, in 2005, the combined economies of all six Central American countries proper only equaled the output of New Haven, Connecticut. Adding the Dominican Republican barely moved this needle. Because of this gargantuan size disparity, access to the American economy was clearly the paramount prize in this arrangement, and the non-U.S. signatories needed the deal much more than did the United States.

Second, largely as a result, the DR-CAFTA deal was less an example of trade policy than of economic development policy. Yes, cheerleaders for the agreement talked of opening exciting new markets for American domestic producers – talk belied by the micro nature of Central American and Dominican markets). And yes, they spoke of enhancing the competitiveness of the American textile industry – claims belied by the impossibility that the pact could overcome the advantages of the Asian apparel giants). But at bottom, the deal was a foreign aid program for the region.

Leave aside its clear failure to achieve meaningful “democracy, economic reform, and regional integration” – at least if you believe even a fraction of countless news reports of out-of-control lawlessness and violence in Central America. Given the non-U.S. signatories’ desperate need for any American help they could get, why on earth would Washington permit the treaty to create a system for choosing arbitration panels – which have the last say in determining a dispute’s winner and loser – that treats the United States and the other DR-CAFTA countries as legal equals?

One answer is that the agreement – like many other U.S. trade deals – was actually intended to foster offshoring, not open foreign markets. So the multinational companies that have dominated the American trade policymaking process for so long made sure that dispute resolution aimed first and foremost to prevent the United States from limiting its imports from their Central American and Dominican factories for any reason. And given the absence of significant consumption markets in the region, that observation seems compelling.

But the so-far-standard U.S. approach to dispute-resolution in trade also typifies a legalistic worldview that contrasts sharply with global realities even in an economic sphere where, for numerous reasons, it’s still completely inappropriate. In fact, this legalism is likelier to undermine American interests than serve them.

Principally, the prevalence tariff and non-tariff barriers to both trade and investment, along with various other predatory practices, shows that the consensus on acceptable economic behavior needed for a genuine legal system to function adequately simply does not exist in fact. Ditto for the great majority of economies that rely heavily on amassing net exports to generate growth. As a result, international commerce is anything but the positive-sum arena portrayed by politicians and academics. So any arrangements meant to negate national power are bound to handcuff the United States. Worse, they handcuff America needlessly.

Perhaps one day, the worldwide consensus needed for a genuine, legitimate system of trade law will emerge. Until it does, however, the United States should capitalize on the leverage it enjoys as the world’s most open major trading power and market of last resort, and sign trade agreements that establish it as judge, jury, and court of appeals for whatever disputes arise. There’s no better place to start than scrapping the artificial – and indeed forced – egalitarianism of the DR-CAFTA trade agreement.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Which Democrats are Serious and Un-Serious About Trade Overhaul?

Tags

AFL-CIO, Bernie Sanders, Canada, Charles Schumer, currency manipulation, Debbie Dingell, Democrats, dispute resolution, Elizabeth Warren, environmental standards, labor standards, Mexico, NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, Politico, Richard Neal, Robert Lighthizer, Rosa deLauro, rules of origin, Thea Lee, Trade, Trump, U.S. Trade Representative, unions, Wilbur Ross, William Pascrell, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Usually, paying attention to instances of politicians and other public figures getting up on their soapboxes is a waste of time. Yesterday served up an exception: a press conference held by House Democrats in reaction to President Trump’s official decision to open talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The statements recorded in this Politico account offer some evidence as to which leaders on America’s Left are willing to work with the administration on trade policies that can help the working class voters Democrats still profess to champion, and those who will remain content to sit on the sidelines and take partisan potshots.

Reportedly, all of the House members who spoke at the event “said…they feared Trump would make only modest changes to NAFTA after blasting it as an economic disaster throughout last year’s presidential campaign.” The basis for these worries? The letter sent yesterday by new U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to Congressional leaders announcing the administration’s intention to open NAFTA talks with the two other signatories, Canada and Mexico. According to these House Democrats and some other trade critics, the document apparently was “short on details,” which many claimed indicated Trump’s intention simply to “tweak” rather than comprehensively overhaul the agreement.

All else equal, wondering about the president’s real intentions is anything but unreasonable. His personality, after all, is mercurial, and one of his major trade initiatives to date – the negotiations begun with Beijing following February’s summit with Chinese leader XiJinping – has legitimately disappointed advocates of the major course change he pledged during the campaign. (The other major trade initiative, scrapping the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, kept a leading campaign promise to the letter.) Moreover, the Lighthizer letter is indeed short on specifics.

But none of the participants in the press conference seems to have noticed that in previous statements –including reportedly to leading Democratic lawmakers, top Trump officials have emphasized the need for dramatic NAFTA changes.

For example, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has described as high NAFTA-related priorities greatly tightening the pact’s rules of origin in order to incentivize more non-NAFTA manufacturing investment inside the free trade zone, and restructuring a dispute-resolution system that gives each signatory an equal vote even though the United States represents more than 85 percent of North America’s total economic output. Reinforcing this point was the Lighthizer letter’s contention that “establishing effective implementation and aggressive enforcement of the commitments made by our trading partners under our trade agreements is vital to the success of these agreements and should be improved in the context of NAFTA.”

Meanwhile, Lighthizer reportedly has told Senators that the administration is thinking of adding to NAFTA rules that would prohibit currency manipulation – a move that would set a valuable precedent for future trade deals. In addition, his letter mentioned the need to improve NAFTA’s labor and environmental protections. In my view, they’re largely unenforceable. But they’ve been a prime focus of Democratic Party trade policy positions for decades.

So given that background, it seems fair at this point to finger Connecticut’s Rosa deLauro, New Jersey’s Bill Pascrell, and Massachusetts’ Richard Neal as grandstanders. The former stressed the “tweaking” allegation. The latter two charged that “It was clear from the start that the administration was only interested in working with the Congressional Republican leadership in drafting this notice [the Lighthizer letter].”

I’d also include in this group several key Senate Democrats, including Leader Charles Schumer of New York, former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of New York, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. They voted against Lighthizer’s confirmation despite his decades-long record of fighting predatory foreign trade practices both as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative during the Reagan administration, and as a trade lawyer representing domestic American producers.

More temperate in their judgments were Michigan’s Debbie Dingell, and the AFL-CIO’s Thea Lee. The former stated that she was “investing the time to understand where the consensus is.” The latter said, “We enter every negotiation in a good faith state of mind and we expect a lot from our government. Certainly candidate Trump made a lot of promises about fixing flawed trade agreements and looking out for American workers and good jobs, so we will hold him and his administration to that promise.”

I can’t think of a more reasonable position for politicians and other supporters of a movement that still styles itself as the “party of the common man [and woman].”

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How Trump Can Get His Trade Chops Back

Tags

bilateral trade agreements, China, dispute resolution, free trade agreements, Government Accountability Office, Japan, managed trade, Mike Pence, multilateral trade agreements, North Korea, Robert Lighthizer, semiconductors, South Korea, tariffs, Trade, Trump, U.S. Trade Representative, U.S.-Japan semiconductor agreement, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Comments made by Vice President Pence on his Asia trip concerning America’s trade relations with Japan and South Korea show both the promise and peril of the Trump administration’s approach to international commerce and globalization. Major gains for the economy are possible from negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with Japan and revamping what Mr. Pence described as a failed deal with South Korea. But first, the president and his aides must show more awareness than to date of why accords with countries like these keep failing.

According to candidate Trump, and President Trump, the main problems with such measures have been, variously, incompetent U.S. negotiators, dominance of the policy process by offshoring and similar interests, and a mistaken preference for multilateral arrangements over bilateral deals where America’s leverage is less likely to be watered down.

The second reason for failure cited above has certainly shaped U.S. trade agreements with super low-cost countries that have been tempting locations for production and job offshoring, and that have revealingly comprised the vast majority of trade deals initiated and signed by Washington since the early 1990s. But footloose multinationals have played a much smaller role when it comes to higher income countries like Japan and South Korea. There, achieving better results for the American domestic economy has faced two leading obstacles.

The first has been widely noted: the longstanding tendency of the U.S. leaders to elevate geopolitical aims like strengthening security alliances over economic aims like removing distortions to trade flows. Here, strangely, the administration has been giving off mixed signals lately. The president is now clearly treating the security-related objective of gaining more Chinese cooperation in resolving the North Korea nuclear weapons crisis as a higher priority than combating the numerous predatory Chinese trade policies that have hurt domestic employers and their workers. But he blasted such priorities as recently as last month. And the Pence statements indicate that trade and security issues will be handled on separate tracks for Japan and South Korea.

The second obstacle has been less widely noted – although it’s been a major theme of mine: Opening markets in highly protectionist countries like those Asian powers is fiendishly difficult, at best. As I’ve written, these economies are most accurately seen as nation-wide systems of protection and mercantilism. The particular form taken by any of their trade barriers or subsidies at any given moment matters much less than the underlying intent to manage trade flows to their advantage. In addition, these protectionist systems are run by powerful bureaucracies whose secretiveness and agility makes even identifying problematic practices – much less combating them – excruciatingly difficult.

The bottom line is that trade agreements with such countries are virtually impossible to monitor and enforce effectively, and because their governments know this, the provisions are violated routinely.

By contrast, because the U.S. government is so transparent, almost of America’s trade barriers and subsidies are easy to identify and attack, and American compliance with trade agreements is easy to measure. So it’s easy to see how these agreements strongly tend to create more (and more strongly guaranteed) access to the U.S. market than vice versa. This new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office shows how these damaging results can stem from multilateral agreements, but the Korea deal spotlighted by Spence and a long string of agreements with Japan show the similarly dismal record of bilateral arrangements.

That’s not to say that worthwhile trade deals with Japan and South Korea are impossible. But they’ll require thinking that’s much further outside the box than the administration seems to be engaged in. The best possibility would be going the managed trade route. That is, rather than accept unverifiable promises to dismantle trade barriers or end subsidies, America’s interlocutors would commit to allot specific shares of their domestic markets to specific U.S.-origin goods and services. There’s even a precedent for this practice – the 1986 semiconductor trade agreement reached between Washington and Tokyo.

Managed trade of course isn’t free trade. But little about Japanese and South Korean policies fits the definition, either. And the history of the semiconductor deal is well known by President Trump’s choice to head the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, Robert Lighthizer, because he was personally and deeply involved.

Another possibility would be to expand one of the few modestly worthwhile leafs from former President Obama’s 2012 trade agreement with South Korea. Precisely because Seoul’s predatory practices in the automobile sector specifically were so difficult to combat via the standard, legalistic procedures used in the dispute-resolution systems in most American free trade agreements (and the international counterpart run by the World Trade Organization), Mr. Obama secured South Korean acceptance of provisions that are especially appropriate in dealings with opaque bureaucracies that prevent significant evidence gathering.

Specifically, if a dispute-resolution panel convened under the agreement decides that Seoul is violating the auto provisions, and the United States restores pre-agreement tariffs on Korean products, it’s up to the Koreans to prove that they’re back in compliance with the treaty before the new tariffs are removed. Even better, however, would be to impose the burden of proof on South Korea, Japan, and similar countries as soon as a complaint is filed.

Yet there’s a strong argument that the very structure of dispute-resolution mechanisms is fatally flawed. Whether the trade agreement in question is bilateral or multilateral, these arrangements treat the United States as an equal party. But given the huge size of the U.S. economy relative to any other trade agreement signatories, and therefore given its status as the paramount prize in any such agreement, this “one country-one vote” set-up is as absurd as it is detrimental to American interests.

Rather than agree to such standard dispute-resolution systems – which invariably result in deadlocks that penalize open economies like America’s – Washington should insist that dispute-resolution votes be allotted more realistically. Basing them on the sizes of the various signatory economies is one obvious formula.

And don’t forget the ultimate America-First trade policy: Dispense with negotiations altogether, or for the most part, and start imposing tariffs on the imports of predatory trading powers, or on all imports (in order to prevent offshore exporters from switching production sites). Of course, that universalism is a big virtue of the border adjustment tax proposed by the House’s Republican leaders. In return, Mr. Trump could offer greater U.S. market access to those countries that prove (after years of good behavior according to exclusively American judgments) that they’re giving American exports a fair shake. This form of unilateralism should have special political appeal for an administration that’s increasingly in need of some big early economic wins.

President Trump (at least the pre-China currency version) has been termed a trade policy disrupter. If he wants to re-earn that label, getting the nation’s Japan and South Korea trade right after decades of frightful losses would be a great place to start.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Lopsided Trade is Making Financial Crisis 2.0 Likelier

Tags

Bloomberg, dispute resolution, export-led growth, free trade agreements, Global Imbalances, HSBC, IMF, International Monetary Fund, Janet Henry, Korea, Larry Summers, manufacturing, Obama, offshoring, secular stagnation, TPP, Trade, Trade Deficits, Trans-Pacific Partnership, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As RealityChek regulars know, my biggest fear about the U.S. and global economies concerns the likelihood that rebounding, trade-centered current account imbalances around the world will lead to an international financial and economic crisis just as they did in the previous decade. The big difference next time, of course, would be that major central banks would not have already poured trillions of dollars and yen and euros worth into major economies in a vain attempt to promote historically adequate growth.

So it’s great to see these concerns coming from a new source. As reported by Bloomberg last week, on top of the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. Treasury, and, as I’ve reported, leading academic economists) a leading analyst from the HSBC bank is expressing comparable worries.

To review quickly, the idea is that the record trade and broader payments shortfalls run by the United States in the “aughts” sent so much foreign capital flooding into the country that most incentives to use these funds prudently vanished. And with years of deregulation and lax regulation freeing American finance companies to concoct ever more reckless schemes to deliver acceptable returns in the face of this yield-depressing glut, much of the economy turned into a gigantic, housing- and consumption-fueled Ponzi Scheme.

I’d add three extra points. First, the offshored U.S. manufacturing production behind so much of the nation’s trade deficits greatly reduced the number of genuinely productive investments that the American financial sector could contemplate. Meanwhile, the burgeoning narrative that manufacturing was increasingly passe for an advanced economy like the United States kneecapped any expectations that adequate productive investment opportunities would return any time soon.

Second, the neglect of productive domestic sectors like manufacturing played a major role in plunging the United States into the secular stagnation trap so cogently described by former Treasury Secretary and Harvard economist Larry Summers. For an economy lacking adequate productive ways to foster growth – and especially a democracy – will be continually and sorely tempted to spur short-term growth by inflating dangerous credit bubbles.

Third, America’s proposed new trade deals, especially the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are likeliest to boost U.S. trade deficits further. Their most economically dynamic signatories depend heavily on net exporting for growth. Their foreign market-opening measures are either inherently difficult to enforce or subject to dispute-resolution processes stacked in favor of export-dependent defendants. And America’s remaining trade barriers are easy to identify and will be much easier for the other signatories to eviscerate. Indeed, TPP is modeled on the bilateral U.S. trade agreement with Korea, under which the American merchandise deficit has skyrocketed.

The analysis by HSBC’s Janet Henry doesn’t apparently go into this degree of trade policy detail. But it makes two especially disturbing points of its own. First, as made clear by this chart, the global imbalances in toto are back to their bubble-decade levels – and then some.

True, the American shortfall is down since peak bubble bloat. But it’s up since the current economic recovery began. Moreover, the historic sluggishness of the current expansion is undoubtedly keeping the current account and trade gaps down.

Second, the chart shows that the biggest source of resurgent current account surpluses is “Other Asia” – which of course includes Japan and other important TPP members. China’s chronic surplus hasn’t recovered quite as fast, but TPP could change that as well, since its inadequate rules of origin give outside countries a wide open backdoor into the new trade zone.

As strongly suggested by his renewed TPP push, President Obama either doesn’t know about these developments and relationships, or doesn’t care. If he succeeds in a lame duck session of Congress, or if his successor fails to heed the glaringly obvious trade policy lessons, Americans may look back on their current secular stagnation as an economic golden age.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Text Showcases TPP’s Real Flaws

Tags

China, currency manipulation, dispute resolution, enforcement, environmental standards, exports, imports, labor standards, Obama, protectionism, rules of origin, state-owned enterprises, TPP, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade surpluses, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Treasury Department, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The release this morning of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP) text means that the Obama administration has kept at least one of its promises in connection with the Pacific Rim agreement: The public has gained the ability to review every single provision in detail within a month of the deal’s signing in Atlanta, Georgia.

Nonetheless, when it comes to evaluating the TPP, the devil is not in the details, and never has been – for all the sweat expended by government officials and industry lobbyists from the 12 signatory countries on even the most arcane aspects of rules of origin, tariff rates and elimination schedules, copyright protections, labor and environmental standards, and the like. All the while, there have been only been two remotely possible exceptions – the agreement’s provisions for dispute resolution, and for determining which goods will actually be eligible for the agreement’s trade breaks.

Re dispute resolution, which is obviously crucial to any agreement’s effectiveness but which has been generally ignored in the TPP debate, the text’s release simply confirms what has always been utterly predictable: This system mirrors the kangaroo court arrangements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) – whose creation has done virtually nothing to prevent the U.S. economy’s victimization from predatory foreign trade practices. As a result, the claim of President Obama and other supporters that the agreement will create a huge, increasingly integrated market governed by U.S.-friendly, free-market-oriented rules should be recognized as the most naive imaginable fantasy.

Re rules of origin, the text confirms numerous press reports that the TPP’s benefits will extend to many products whose content comes from outside the new trade zone – which makes a mockery of the notions that currently excluded countries like China need to join in order to enjoy TPP’s benefits, and that the agreement’s conclusion therefore creates powerful incentives for such non-signatories to adopt the TPP’s high standards,

The TPP dispute-resolution process unveiled in the text demonstrates that the vast majority of member states, whose prosperity depends heavily on maximizing net exports and thus racking up trade surpluses, will gain major new guarantees of unfettered access to America’s much more open market. As with the WTO, a crucial effect of the TPP – and raison d’etre – is to narrow greatly the United States’ internationally accepted legal authority to respond unilaterally to the types of mercantilism in which most TPP countries, notably gigantic Japan, specialize.

Moreover, as with the WTO, despite the paramount importance of the U.S. market, the TPP’s dispute-resolution and rule-making systems grant no special role for America. Even though its economy represents nearly two-thirds of the new total TPP market, its influence under the agreement is simply equal to that of much smaller, and indeed tiny, economies.

Worse, just as with the WTO, the TPP’s one-country/one-vote arrangement will enable the majority of the signatories to game the system and work cooperatively to further their joint goal of ensuring that the U.S. market remains much wider open to their goods and services than the reverse. In other words, like the WTO, and all other international organizations, the TPP will be fundamentally a political organization, not a legal-juridical arrangement, and America’s negotiating strategy has in effect defined its inevitable politics out of existence.

Consequently, whatever market-opening and playing-field language the TPP text contains, turning these words into significantly new, more equitable trade realities is a chimera. For the vast majority of TPP members will be determined – and empowered through their ability to interpret rules and influence verdicts – to ensure the opposite. These countries will be working overtime, and successfully, to prevent TPP dispute-resolution panels from handing down decisions against one that could serve as precedents against all of the others, and the larger organization from writing rules, that could be used to undermine their mercantile national economic structures and strategies.

Understanding the TPP’s protectionist-friendly structure in particular debunks U.S. claims that it will foster meaningful progress toward ending or even disciplining currency manipulation. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, an agreement on this practice among the twelve signatories – which, revealingly, isn’t even in the actual TPP text – “sets a new high standard on exchange rate policies and unfair currency practices for trade agreements.”

But believing this proposition amounts to believing that countries with long protectionist histories, like Japan and Malaysia, are OK with launching efforts that eventually will forever prevent them from using a device for creating decisive price advantages for all the goods they trade in markets around the world. What is it that is known about such economies that convinces anyone that such changes of heart have taken place?

In addition, the rules of origin laid out in the final text make clear that nothing could be easier for non-signatories, like China, to enjoy many crucial advantages of TPP membership. After all, thousands of manufactured goods will be eligible for duty-free or duty-lighter treatment in TPP markets even if most of their content comes from non-TPP members. Given the pervasive global reality of industrial supply chains passing through many countries both in the TPP and outside, this is a Pacific-sized loophole.

The text’s release also should remind Congress, the public, and the media that even if the TPP’s deck wasn’t organizationally stacked against the United States, its measures to prevent abuses of workers and the environment, and the operations of state-owned enterprises, from being used for competitive advantage, are utterly unenforceable from a simple logistical and administrative standpoint.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the factory complexes of even relatively small TPP economies dwarf the capacity of the U.S. government to monitor their labor and environmental practices systematically. And in many TPP economies, the lines between public and private sector are blurry enough, and bureaucracies opaque and skilled enough at concealing information, to render wishful thinking any confidence that these systems can be transformed.

It’s equally fanciful to suppose that even the TPP’s minimalist origin rules can be effectively enforced, either. How many million American bureaucrats would be required to open how many containers of goods coming into U.S. ports to ensure compliance? And how many more would be needed to find out whether boxes of Chinese-produced goods marked “Made in Malaysia” or “Made in Japan” really are?

All along, the effort to negotiate the TPP, and the debate generated by the deal, have reflected the American delusion that signatures on a piece of paper prove that economies that have been largely closed and centrally commanded for decades have genuinely decided to mend their ways. It’s been a delusion shared by both agreement supporters (who contend that they’ve accomplished this aim) and opponents (who insist that this goal can be achieved with better language).

As a result, even the TPP’s defeat in Congress may not guarantee that American trade policy will get off its failed, export- and negotiations-obsessed track, and focus on what the United States has much more control over – access to its own one-of-a-kind market and the leverage it creates to establish more equitable and sustainable terms of trade unilaterally. But the right kind of TPP debate could still provide an invaluable learning opportunity – and start the process of turning America’s approach to trade into an engine of domestic growth and job creation, rather than of offshoring, higher trade deficits, and (even) slower recovery.      

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: On Trade, Now What?

Tags

currency manipulation, dispute resolution, environmental standards, fast track, Financial Crisis, free trade agreements, gross domestic product, labor standards, Obama, offshoring lobby, reciprocity, recovery, rule of law, Senate, Trade, trade enforcement, Trans-Pacific Partnership, transparency, U.S. Trade Representative, unilateralism, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although yesterday’s Senate vote doesn’t mean that President Obama’s hopes for winning fast track trade negotiating are dead, this historically trade- (and offshoring-) friendly body’s decision to delay debate with a new presidential election cycle already heating up certainly dims the odds. Just as important, their Senate victory starts putting the onus on critics to propose a new U.S. trade strategy. Here are some of my ideas.

First, about the only true statement Mr. Obama has made during the debate over a measure that would prevent Congress from amending newly signed trade agreements is that the status quo on this policy front is unacceptable. To me, the most damning indictment of the current trade landscape is my finding that the portion of U.S. trade flows most influenced by trade deals and related policies has worsened greatly during this feeble economic recovery – and slowed real growth since the last recession.  Since that article was published, that growth toll has risen to nearly 20 percent.

The answer, however, isn’t doubling down on the kinds of treaties that have produced this policy disaster. Nor is it dressing up the current framework with Congressional directives to enforce higher labor and environmental standards at foreign factories. Too many well-intentioned trade critics in particular ignore the immense difficulties Washington has had adequately regulating in the United States. As I’ve repeatedly written, the notion that huge foreign factory complexes can be monitored more effectively doesn’t stand to reason.

I’m much more sympathetic to adding what are called strong, enforceable curbs on foreign currency manipulation to the list of Congress’ mandatory trade negotiating instructions to presidents, but even this idea faces a huge problem. Many of America’s prospective trade deal partners are determined to retain the right to undervalue their currencies to undersell U.S.-origin goods and services for reasons totally unrelated to free markets or underlying competitiveness. Therefore, unless the United States wins unprecedented voting power in the dispute-resolution systems created by new trade agreements, other parties to the deal will easily be able to reject even the best-founded American complaints.

These very weaknesses in the current trade policy models supported by both supporters of current deals (and to a fascinating extent by the critics) start pointing the way to a fundamentally new approach. So do the unmistakable realities that the U.S. market is by far the biggest prize of any trade negotiations; that it enjoys a matchless potential for economic self-sufficiency; and that even though rebounding trade deficits (especially those shaped by policy) are dragging on America’s weak-enough recovery, the U.S. economy has been a global out-performer lately. (Interestingly, preliminary figures have just revealed that the chronically troubled Eurozone expanded faster than America in the first quarter of this year, but the main reasons are improving European trade balances and worsening American deficits.)

As a result, Washington should scrap its commitment to traditional negotiations and the quest for new international deals as the basis for its trade policy. Since access to the American market is so uniquely valuable to most foreign economies, and since Washington has so much more capacity to enforce laws and regulations within the U.S. economy than without, U.S. leaders should focus instead on establishing the terms of doing business in America unilaterally. Foreign governments could certainly retaliate, although the chronically lopsided pattern of global trade can leave no doubt that they’d come out the worse in any resulting “trade war.” It’s far likelier that America’s competitors would, in essence, pay to play.

And here’s another reason that any overseas protests would be short-lived: Because the United States takes seriously values like the rule of law and transparency, an exclusively American-run system for enforcing domestic trade justice would give them a much fairer shake than their own governments often give their own companies and workers in their own economies.

This new approach need not destroy all employment opportunities at America’s trade negotiating agencies. Officials at the U.S. Trade Representative’s office could still find useful work devising deals based on genuine reciprocity. But because the main foreign trade barriers nowadays consist of practices developed and carried out by highly secretive foreign bureaucracies, making evidence painfully difficult to find, determining whether such reciprocity has been achieved would be up to Washington exclusively.

Ironically, many American trade policy critics can be expected to charge that this unilateralism would trample the sovereignty of countries all around the world. But nothing could be further from the truth. Any foreign governments finding the new policy unacceptable would be perfectly free to seek growth and employment and prosperity without utilizing American demand. Of course, the offshoring lobby and various avowed free market champions will angrily condemn the new approach as neanderthal protectionism. But it’s truer to private sector norms in one crucial respect. Rather than giving away for free an enormously valuable asset like the American market, this strategy would charge a price.

Since the new strategy would represent such a dramatic and disruptive policy revolution, it’s best to phase it in – the way current trade agreements phase in agreed-on reductions or elimination of many trade barriers. Economic actors certainly deserve time to adjust. In fact, here’s a possible compromise for the squeamish: Washington could continue seeking trade deals that establish various new rules and standards for U.S. and foreign economies. But America’s role in any dispute-resolution system should be proportionate to the size of its economy in any new free trade zone. So for President Obama’s proposed Pacific Rim trade deal (the Trans-Pacific Partnership), the United States would hold nearly two-thirds of the votes, because America’s gross domestic product equals that percentage of the prospective free trade zone’s economic output. Surely that’s more equitable than the standard one-country-one-vote approach.

These ideas are strong medicine, to be sure. But critics should keep in mind that the historic imbalances produced by America’s current trade strategy helped set the stage for last decade’s financial crisis and its dispiriting aftermath, and that even despite the slow U.S. and global recoveries, trade flows are becoming similarly lopsided again. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that superior approaches might be developed. But what have their creators been waiting for?