(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Now Biden’s Gone America First on the World Trade Organization

Tags

{What's Left of) Our Economy, Trade, WTO, World Trade Organization, national security, sovereignty, international law, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, America First, GATT, globalism, Trump administration, Biden administration

If someone told you that the U.S. government has outsourced to an international organization the legal authority to decide when American national security is endangered – and inevitably how it can respond – you’d probably think they were pretty out there, or shamelessly lying.

Except that’s exactly what happened in 1947, when globalist U.S. leaders agreed to the body of rules aimed at governing international trade in the post-World War II world, and what remained the case for decades afterward. And although last week, the Biden administration moved decisively to restore sanity to U.S. trade policy in this respect, it didn’t make the complete policy about face that’s still needed.

Since protecting a country’s security is by far the Number One responsibility of any national government, such governments need to be the supreme deciders of how to carry out this mission on an ongoing basis. Further, the legitimacy of this authority logically goes double when democratic national governments like the United States’ are concerned. Why should any other power or organization hold any ability to veto or even influence choices made by the American people’s duly elected representatives to ensure their system’s safety, much less survival? Indeed, on what valid basis could such an ability actually exist? The kindness of strangers? Their superior wisdom?

These maxims are so self-evident (as America’s Declaration of Independence might put it), that even the main body of international law (a system not known for its pragmatism) recognizes them as fundamental attributes of a country’s sovereignty – its bedrock right to take whatever steps it considers needed to keep itself in existence. And how can this security be maintained if its leaders lack the unfettered ability to figure out when threats are present and what they consist of, and if they constantly need to be worrying about is whether the policies they choose pass international muster or not?

But the crucial importance of national sovereignty wasn’t so self-evident to American leaders in World War II’s aftermath. For in the bylaws of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – the global trade regime that was turned into the World Trade Organization (WTO) at the beginning of 1995 – they agreed to an article that safeguarded a member state’s right to take “any action [to restrict trade] which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests.” Crucially, however, this same Article XXI then proceeded to set out three criteria that such actions needed to meet in order to pass the legality test – including the specification that trade restrictions take place “in time of war or other emergency in international relations.”

These U.S. leaders might have had some decent excuses. First, this was an age when the United States bestrode the world like a titan. How could it be plausibly threatened by mere words on paper? Further, countries outside the Communist camp (none inside signed onto the new trade pact until the mid-1960s) were hardly likely to want to tie America’s military hands since most relied so heavily on U.S. protection.

Second, the GATT lacked effective procedures for enforcing its rules. And third, Washington has always assumed that the Article XXI’s reference to actions that members “consider necessary” means that the entire measure (including the insistence that trade restrictions are legal only in certain types of international conditions) is “self-judging” – i.e., that members’ have the final say over whether it can both define its security interests and the situations in which they can be invoked to override the GATT/WTO’s ban on trade curbs.

But however understandable the U.S. position might have been in 1947, dramatic changes in national and global circumstances over decades should have alerted Washington long ago that Article XXI was bound to cause trouble. Chiefly, America’s predominant global military and economic role inevitably eroded. Many of its allies became formidable economic competitors. The line between military goods and civilian goods – never completely clear – became thoroughly blurred as products incorporating “dual use” technologies proliferated. And the birth of the WTO gave the world trade system a much more effective enforcement system.

Here it’s important to be really specific. It’s not that the WTO can muster a police force, march into the District of Columbia, and compel U.S. officials to follow its dictates. The effectiveness of this dispute resolution system is based on its authority to permit countries claiming to be harmed by U.S. (or any members’) trade practices to respond with retaliatory tariffs – which can be strategically targeted on the kinds of domestic industries powerful enough to launch lobbying campaigns able to force their governments into compliance.

So it’s easy to see why many WTO members – most of which rely heavily on net exporting to the U.S. market to achieve satisfactory levels of growth and employment) would want to use Article XXI to undercut American sovereignty in order to gain advantages for their own industries – including allies who had learned that the United States would continue protecting them and tolerating their defense free-riding even after serious provocations.

Earlier this month, this gambit paid off in spades, as the WTO declared illegal the U.S. tariffs avowedly imposed on steel and aluminum imports for national security reasons by former President Trump in spring, 2018.

Fortunately, in reality, none of the plaintiff countries can legally counter-tariff these U.S. curbs – because that same former President Trump effectively neutered the WTO dispute-resolution system by leaving seats on its appeals panels empty and preventing that body from convening to handle any next legal steps. And to his credit, President Biden has declined to appoint replacements as well.

Also to its credit, though, his administration “strongly rejected” these WTO rulings, and declared that “The United States has held the clear and unequivocal position, for over 70 years, that issues of national security cannot be reviewed in WTO dispute settlement and the WTO has no authority to second-guess the ability of a WTO Member to respond to a wide-range of threats to its security….The United States will not cede decision-making over its essential security to WTO panels.”

Unfortunately, the Biden administration didn’t take this position when it should have – once these foreign suits were filed to begin with. In fact, the administration not only (weirdly) agreed that the WTO does have jurisdiction when national security concerns come into play, but only in the sense that it was required to approve of members’ freedom to invoke these considerations to justify trade barriers. It also went to ridiculous lengths to defend the U.S. position as if WTO members were not able to self-judge their national security claims – to the point of trying to show grammatically that the plaintiffs were misreading Article XXI grammatically.

Think I’m kidding? Here’s how the one of the WTO reports presenting the anti-U.S. ruling described the U.S. effort, including direct quotes from the American brief:

“A premise of the United States’ characterization of Article XXI (b) as ‘self-judging’ is that, based on ‘the text and grammatical structure’ of the provision, ‘the phrase ‘which it considers’ qualifies all of the terms in the single relative clause that follows the word ‘action’. According to the United States, this ‘single relative clause’ in Article XXI(b) ‘begins with ‘which it considers necessary’ and ends at the end of each subparagraph’ and ‘describes the situation which the Member ‘considers’ to be present when it takes such ‘action’. The United States argues from this premise that, ‘[b]ecause the relative clause describing the action begins with ‘which it considers’, the other elements of this clause are committed to the judgment of the Member taking the action.’ The United States thus posits an ‘overall grammatical structure’ of Article XXI(b) according to which a panel may not ‘determine, for itself, whether a security interest is ‘essential’ to the Member in question, or whether the circumstances described in one of the subparagraphs exists'”.

For their part, the plaintiff countries, along with the WTO tribunals, dredged up copies of The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Strunk and White’s classic The Elements of Style, and Merriam-Webster’s Guide to Punctuation and Style, among other such sources, to undercut such claims.

But even though the plaintiffs’ complaints are stuck in international legal limbo, the U.S. decision to legitimize and play this game has resulted in an international organization still proclaiming, without challenge, its absolute right to tell American leaders when they are or are not in a war (dictionary definitions are used as the ultimate standard), and even when they or any part of their national economy do and do not face an “international emergency” (a decision the panel specifically arrogates to WTO judges).

Dispositive substantive arguments can be raised against all the WTO tribunals’ conclusions. For example, as stated above, ensuring a nation’s security adequately is a challenge that doesn’t only arise during especially fraught times in international politics. It typically requires steps taken during more tranquil periods to ensure that military capabilities are adequate the moment trouble starts. WTO rules that prevent these measures from being taken until crises break out could simply ensure that they’re not in effect in time for the United States to prevail.

Yet making these points amounts to falling into the same trap into which the Biden administration’s trade litigators ensnared themselves and the country. Instead, Washington should both make emphatically clear that once U.S. authorities justify a trade-restricting measure, the WTO is irrelevant (as the Biden administration eventually declared) and then boycott whatever proceedings are convened.

Plaintiff countries would still be free to try to address these problems either through standard bilateral diplomacy, or counter-measures of their own, or some combination of the two, and let the party with the most leverage come out on top. Trade purists dismiss these practices as descending into a dangerous economic “law of the jungle,” but the United States and the European Union resorted to just this approach to resolve a long dispute about aircraft production subsidies outside WTO auspices. And freed of the cumbersome and inflexible adversarial framework imposed by the trade body’s legalistic procedures, they reached an agreement that satisfied all major stakeholders – including U.S. unions.

Handling these disputes bilaterally will strongly tend to produce lasting results and work in the U.S.’ favor because (a) agreements will reflect real world power balances – not the rulings of a system whose only raison d’etre is to define power out of existence in favor of an abstract equitism that’s completely divorced from global circumstances on the ground – and (b) because the United States enjoys an abundance of such power.

That the globalist Biden administration is acting as willing as the America First-y Trump administration to recognize that, at least when it comes to national security, tinternational trade law is “an idiot” (to quote Dickens) signals an encouragingly fundamental turn in America’s approach to the global economy. Even better would be for the President to make the break as clean and unmistakable as possible.

Advertisement

Im-Politic: A World Trade Organization Pull-Out Proposal that Falls Sadly Short

Tags

America First, CCP Virus, China, conservartives, coronavirus, COVID 19, export bans, GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, health security, Im-Politic, Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio, national treatment, nationalism, non-discrimination, Populism, protectionism, reciprocity, Republicans, rules-based trade, sovereignty, Trade, unilateralism, World Trade Organization, WTO, Wuhan virus

I can barely describe how much I wanted to like Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley’s May 6 op-ed piece in The New York Times calling for a U.S. withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO). That’s why I can also barely describe the growing disappointment I felt as I read through it.  At best, it deserves only an “A for effort” grade.

First, let’s give Hawley (considerable) credit where it’s due. As I’ve been arguing since it went into business at the start of 1995, and in fact was predicting during the national debate preceding Congress’ approval of the idea the fall before, the WTO has gravely harmed crucial American economic interests. (This recent post briefy summarizes my views.)

Let’s also give The Times op-ed page credit for running an article that’s even more strongly opposed to the pre-Trump U.S. trade policy status quo than President Trump has been – because although he’s approved policies that have thrown the WTO’s future into doubt, he’s never explicitly called for a pull-out, and in fact his administration has portrayed these measures as vital steps toward WTO reform.

Hawley, moreover, articulates many powerful indictments of the WTO’s failure to defend or advance U.S. interests satisfactorily – notably, the cover it’s given to China and other protectionist economies. 

Unfortunately, Hawley’s anti-WTO case and recommendations for going forward are fundamentally basedsed on two big misunderstandings. The first is that the pre-WTO global trading order set up by the United States was based on reciprocity, and therefore adequately safeguarded the interests of American workers. Absolutely not. In fact, the concept of reciprocity – holding that a country has no obligation to reduce its trade barriers any more than those of its partners – was explicitly rejected by the pre-WTO rules, which were known collectively as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

Instead, this global trade regime was based on two principles that actually entitled protectionist countries to maintain higher trade and related economic barriers than those of freer trading countries. The first was called non-discrimination. It simply urged all member countries to treat all other countries the same trade-wise. So if, say, Japan largely closed its markets to one country, all it needed to do to satisfy GATT rules was to treat other countries just as badly.

The second core GATT principle was called national treatment. Under its terms, member countries agreed to treat foreign-owned companies the same as their own companies. So if, say, a country like (again) Japan, which was is still known for fostering cartel-like arrangements that favored some of its own companies over others wanted to discriminate against whatever foreign companies it wished, that was OK according to the WTO.

Some limited exceptions were permitted to both principles. But they explain in a nutshell why Japan’s trade predation (among others’) inflicted so much damage on U.S.-based manufacturing during the WTO period, and why its own economy (among others’) remained so hermetically sealed throughout.

The GATT’s only saving grace – as I just tried to hint by using terms like “urged” and “agreed”  – was that its rules were essentially unenforceable. All told, though, it’s a lousy model for post-WTO U.S. trade policy.

The WTO has featured a strong enforcement mechanism, which is why Hawley (and other critics, like me) have rightly argued that the organization has eroded U.S. national sovereignty. But at the same time, Hawley wants to replace it with “new arrangements and new rules, in concert with other free nations, to restore America’s economic sovereignty and allow this country to practice again the capitalism that made it strong.”

If the rules are for all intents and purposes voluntary, as with the GATT, then fine – although the question then arises of why the rules are needed in the first place. And the question becomes particularly pointed when it comes to the United States, whose longstanding role as the world’s importer of last resort has long given it more than enough unilateral leverage to create all by itself whatever terms of trade it wishes with any trade partner.

At the same time, this business about creating new arrangements with “other free nations” reveals a second major flaw in Hawley’s argument: a belief that there are lots of other countries out there that agree with the United States on defining what is and isn’t acceptable in international trade and commerce. That kind of consensus is a sine qua non of any rules-based system. In fact, it needs to predate the formal creation of that system. The existence of the system itself can’t summon it into existence – unless one or a group of members can force holdouts to accept the consensus, which brings us back to the question of why countries with those capabilities need a system in the first place.

But if anyone really believed in the required preexisting consensus before the CCP Virus struck, their conviction should lay in smoking ruins now. Because as of March 21, no fewer than 54 countries worldwide had been imposing export curbs of some kind on medical supplies, and the same think tank that compiled this data reported that, as of early April, that number had risen to 70. And their ranks included many U.S. allies. So it should be obvious that, when major chips are down, global trade becomes more of a free-for-all than ever.

Hawley has been among those leading U.S. conservatives and Republicans who are trying to develop a nationalist and populist approach to both domestic and international U.S. policy-making that can survive President Trump’s departure from the White House. (Another has been Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio.) And I’ve been very impressed by much of their work so far.

But if they’re genuinely concerned about transforming U.S. trade policy, they’ll recognize the need not only to pull the United States out of the WTO, but to replace that organization with a unilateral strategy incorporating the street smarts and the flexibility to free up America to handle its trade policy needs on its own. If others want to sign on and accept U.S. rules and unilateral enforcement, so much the better. But that kind of “America First” arrangement is the only kind of international regime that can adequately serve the national interest.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trump’s NAFTA Rewrite Blueprint is an Encouraging Start

Tags

bubbles, Buy American, Canada, dispute resolution, environmental standards, GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, government procurement, labor standards, manufacturing, Mexico, NAFTA, national treatment, non-discrimination, North American Free Trade Agreement, reciprocity, rules of origin, tariffs, TPP, Trade, trade deficit, trade enforcement, trade laws, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trump, value-added taxes, VATs, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Trump administration is out with its detailed statement of renegotiation objectives for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and if you’ve favored turning U.S. trade policy from an engine of debt-creation and offshoring into one of production-fueled growth and domestic job creation, you should be pretty pleased.

As critics have noted, yesterday’s statement does lack numerous important details about how the administration intends to achieve its goals, and some of these omissions (as will be explained) raise legitimate questions about the depth of the president’s commitment to these changes. But the statute requiring the release of such statements doesn’t mandate disclosure of every – or any – specific strategy for reaching these goals. Moreover, the talks haven’t even started, and these tactics naturally tend to change with circumstances. So those accusing the administration of excessive vagueness should start holding their fire.

As indicated in yesterday’s post, the most important change needed in NAFTA is the addition of teeth to the agreement’s existing rules of origin – the requirements that goods sold within the NAFTA free trade zone comprised of the United States, Mexico, and Canada be made overwhelmingly of parts, components, and materials made inside the zone.

After all, manufacturing dominates trade not only inside NAFTA, but between the NAFTA countries and the rest of the world. Without imposing teeth, non-NAFTA countries will have no meaningful incentive to invest in new NAFTA-area facilities to produce the intermediate goods that comprise the content of final products, like automobiles. And the economies, businesses, and workers in the three countries will be denied immense opportunities to boost production and employment. Indeed, this is precisely this opportunity that’s been missed under the current NAFTA.

It’s difficult to imagine these teeth taking a form other than steep tariffs on goods imports from outside NAFTA, and the Trump blueprint never mentions that “t” word. But it does contain a call to “Update and strengthen the rules of origin, as necessary, to ensure that the benefits of NAFTA go to products genuinely made in the United States and North America.” And it specifies that these improved origin rules must “incentivize the sourcing of goods and materials from the United States and North America.” How could anyone supporting more U.S. manufacturing production and employment not be heartened?

Also impressive – as widely reported, the administration has prioritized preserving America’s ability to “enforce rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws” chiefly by eliminating the NAFTA provisions that established international tribunals as the last word in resolving trade complaints among the signatories, rather than the U.S. trade law system. The Trump administration is also seeking to reestablish America’s unfettered authority to impose “safeguard” tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada when they begin to surge into the United States. So if you’re worried that NAFTA and other recent U.S. trade agreements have needlessly undermined American sovereignty, this blueprint is for you.

Similarly, critics have long complained about NAFTA’s overriding of the Buy America provisions of U.S. public procurement regulations aimed at maximizing the American taxpayer dollars used to purchase goods and services for government agencies. The Trump strategy laid out in the blueprint seeks to preserve these and other key domestic preference programs.

It’s true, as is being contended, that in areas ranging from promoting high labor rights and environmental standards, to dealing more effectively with the trade distortions created by state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the Trump NAFTA blueprint looks a lot like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that the president condemned as a candidate and withdrew from on his first day in office.

It’s just as true, however, that formidable obstacles were bound to prevent effective enforcement of those proposed TPP rules. These loom as large as ever – notably, the huge numbers of U.S. government officials that would be needed to monitor the even huge-er Mexican manufacturing sector on anything close to an ongoing basis. But the final TPP text demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Obama administration failed to address these concerns adequately. Maybe the Trump administration will come up with viable answers.

Finally, the Trump NAFTA blueprint contains two conceptual objectives that have never been prioritized since the current world trading system was created shortly after World War II, and that trade policy critics should be applauding vigorously. The first is the endorsement of reciprocity as a lodestar of American trade strategy. The second is an emphasis on reducing America’s mammoth trade deficits.

Although reciprocity (i.e., America opens its markets to certain trade partners only to the extent that their markets are open to U.S.-origin goods and services) seems like an uncontroversial trade goal for Washington to seek, and is often presumed to be the goal, nothing until now could be further from the truth. In particular, the foundational principles of the world trade system under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are national treatment and non-discrimination.

National treatment simply insists that countries deal with foreign enterprises the same way they deal with their own domestic enterprises. Non-discrimination simply mandates that countries treat imports from all trade partners’ identically. The big problems? They enable closed economies to maintain way too many trade barriers. For instance, countries that favor certain companies over others for either political reasons (as with China’s state-owned sector) or reasons of national economic strategy (as with Japan’s efforts to limit entrants into certain industries to prevent excessive domestic competition) can continue discriminating in similar ways against foreign competitors. And countries can maintain high trade barriers as long as they apply equally to all imports.

As for trade deficit reduction, it’s a great way to promote healthy, production-led American growth, rather than the kind of debt-led, bubble-ized growth that’s been engineered arguably going back to the 1990s. But here’s where the Trump blueprint can be faulted. Especially if the new NAFTA contains better rules of origin, it’s likeliest to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with non-NAFTA countries, not with the treaty signatories that the blueprint targets. And nothing would be wrong with that result at all.

Two other aspects of the NAFTA objectives deserve comment – and merit genuine concern. First, although it’s good that the administration has included on the list currency manipulation, critics are right to note that specifics are urgently needed. Their development, moreover, is important not mainly because Canada and Mexico have been important culprits (they haven’t been) but because this is a challenge that President Trump needs to meet in connection with countries that clearly have manipulated in the past and could well do so again.

Second, the Trump blueprint makes no mention of value-added taxes (VATS). Mexico’s is 16 percent, Canada’s is five percent at the federal level and eight percent at the provincial level. As with all other VATs, these levies act as barriers to imports and subsidies for exports. Candidate Trump rightly called for American countermeasures in order to level the trade playing field inside NAFTA. President Trump should take heed.   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Progress from Progressives on Trade

Tags

America First, developed countries, developing countries, environmental standards, Financial Crisis, GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, George W. Bush, Global Imbalances, Global Trade Watch, globalization, Hillary Clinton, Jared Bernstein, labor standards, Lori Wallach, multinational companies, NAFTA, national treatment, non-discrimination, North American Free Trade Agreement, offshoring, progressives, Public Citizen, The American Prospect, TPP, Trade, Trans-Pacific Partnership, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Ever since the debate over NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) more than twenty years ago turned trade policy into a nationally contentious issue, the American left has provided the overwhelming share of the political money and muscle aimed at creating urgently needed course corrections. So it’s great to see important signs that progressives have finally started touting two ideas that realistically could make a significant difference.

The evidence can be found in an article coming up in The American Prospect by Jared Bernstein, former top economist to Vice President Biden, and Lori Wallach of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. To be sure, the article does dwell overlong on proposals that left-of-center figures have been making for decades, and that hold little, if any, promise of turning trade agreements and related policy decisions into engines of domestic growth.

For example, there’s the usual call for truly enforceable labor and environmental standards in trade deals – even though adequately inspecting enormous third world national manufacturing complexes is a logistically impossible task. Worse, the offshoring lobby and its minions in Congress and the Executive Branch have already twice used the tactic of making cosmetic changes along these lines in trade agreements to call progressives’ bluff: during the George W. Bush administration in deals with agreements with Panama and Peru; and in President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Don’t think Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t recognize how successful this ploy has been in persuading fence-sitting Congressional Democrats to fall in line behind new trade deals.

Judging from the Bernstein-Wallach piece, moreover, the American left still believes that no hard choices need be made in trade and broader globalization strategy, and that with their proposed reforms, growing international commerce can become a win-win for first and third world workers alike around the world. As I’ve recently written, positive sum outcomes for developed and developing country workforces are possible – if, for instance, NAFTA was turned into a genuine western hemisphere trade bloc, as its leading founders once suggested they intended.

On a global basis, though, the surplus of developing country workers earning pauper wages (both in absolute terms and in relative terms in sectors like advanced manufacturing and high tech services) ensures that for decades the third world will remain much more important as a low-wage and low-regulation production site than as a source of new consumer demand. And as long as that situation holds, astronomical growth-, job-, and wage-killing trade deficits in the United States will be inevitable. Also inevitable will be the buildup of enormous international economic imbalances like those that set the stage for the last financial crisis.

But the most encouraging aspect of the Bernstein-Wallach article was indeed encouraging: The authors argued that not all prospective U.S. trade partners should be treated equally – because they differ in crucial respects. Ever since the current global trading system began taking shape in the immediate aftermath of World War II, one of its biggest weaknesses – and one posing special problems for a relatively open economy like America’s – has been its insistence (largely at Washington’s behest, to be sure) on the principles of non-discrimination and national treatment.

In other words, regardless of how open or closed they are, or how wealthy or impoverished, the United States needed to deal equally with all countries belonging to the old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and to the newer World Trade Organization (WTO). During the early post-war decades, these requirements legally forced American leaders to open their markets as much, say, to relatively open Britain as to hermetically sealed Japan, and to treat identically in the American market businesses from wildly varying countries.

When the end of the Cold War encouraged third world population giants like China and Mexico to introduce selected free market reforms and join the global economy, the option of mass production offshoring was created for multinational companies. As a result, these GATT and then WTO principles prompted the U.S. leaders influenced by these companies to expand trade whether or not the target countries could become significant net consumers, and thus create reasonably balanced trade flows and their economic benefits.

Bernstein and Wallach don’t favor discrimination on grounds like these. (That’s not surprising, since this practice would undercut their positive-sum first-third world trade optimism.) But they do urge selecting

“trade partners based on their countries’ records of compliance with the terms of past trade agreements, international labor and environmental standards, and human rights and other criteria. [The article makes clear that records of currency manipulation would be among them.] While no country has a perfect track record, there is a well-understood continuum of compliance, and known bad actors should be barred from the negotiating table until they’ve made proven, effective efforts to begin cleaning up their acts.”

That’s a start – and a potential wedge.

It’s also heartening to see Bernstein and Wallach emphasize “rewarding those who play by the rules” by creating and enforcing meaningful rules of origin in trade deals. As they rightly note, without such provisions, countries that have not signed various trade deals can still benefit from them because multinationals and other companies will be free to import into member countries goods largely made outside the new trade zone. That’s great of course for businesses seeking the great possible sourcing flexibility. But these practices inevitably render meaningless most of the rest of the given agreement.

And most encouraging of all – although the authors don’t mention this – an American trade policy (robustly) incorporating these features would be in violation of WTO rules. Free of a straitjacket that mandates policy uniformity in a highly diverse world, Washington would be free to choose another globalization lodestar – one that makes far more sense for a country with incomparable market power, potential for self-sufficiency, and thus unilateral leverage. A lodestar like “America First.”

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trade Deals That Ignore Currency Manipulation Could Doom Free Trade

Tags

Alan Beattie, Bretton Woods, C. Fred Bergsten, currency manipulation, Financial Crisis, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Global Imbalances, International Monetary Fund, Plaza Accord, TPP, Trade, Trans-Pacific Partnership, World Trade Organization, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Financial Times‘ Alan Beattie just left no doubt in this post that he opposes adding enforceable disciplines on currency manipulation to trade agreements like the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). What I hope he does next is examine the implications of his currency rigidity for the entire international trade system – because they are immense. In fact, these implications are actually most momentous for those who agree with Beattie.

According to the author, trade remedies and currency policy “have generally been kept apart” under the post-World War II economic order “for several reasons,” notably that “the precision demanded by the former cannot reasonably be supplied by the latter.”

That’s a reasonable judgment, although Beattie has not yet explained in detail why a proposal by the Peterson Institute’s C. Fred Bergsten, for example, to create some precision is completely unpromising. More important, however, is the unmistakable reality implicitly acknowledged by Beattie that, although they have “generally,” been kept apart from trade remedies, currency policy has never been kept totally apart – or even close. Indeed, even the most casual look beyond current controversies makes clear that currency-related concerns were at the heart of worldwide efforts to create a global economy superior to that of the pre-1939 period.

After all, what are now routinely called beggar-thy-neighbor currency devaluations were a major form of the worldwide burst of protectionism that World War II’s victor governments passionately believed worsened the Great Depression and helped trigger cataclysmic conflict. It’s true that the world trade regime that initially emerged after the war had no significant currency-related responsibilities. But that’s not to say that currency and trade were assumed to be unrelated. The Bretton Woods system authorized a new International Monetary Fund (IMF) to foster the exchange-rate stability, and to prevent balance of payments crises, in order to facilitate and maintain trade. At the same time, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the predecessor regime to today’s World Trade Organization (WTO), in its Article XV set out rules on exchange-rate arrangements.

The end of Bretton Woods and of fixed exchange rates (partly resulting from U.S. complaints about Germany’s allegedly undervalued deutschemark), along with the advent of oil price shocks, took the spotlight off currency issues. But their fundamental importance remained unchanged. By the mid-1980s, the emergence of worrisome trade and current account imbalances forced the world’s major trading powers, at America’s instigation, to arrive in 1985 at the so-called Plaza Accord, which readjusted the currency misalignments regarded as their main cause. No doubt that’s why the World Trade Organization, which came into existence shortly after the Plaza Accord, outlawed “exchange actions” that “frustrate the intent” of its trade liberalization terms (although the organization’s dispute-resolution system is legally obliged to address such issues in consultation with the IMF and based on IMF findings).

Nowadays, all serious analysts agree that exchange rates powerfully influence trade flows. There’s less agreement – but still an impressive consensus – that in recent decades, China and other (mainly Asian) countries have artificially undervalued their currencies to create trade advantages. In addition, there’s broad agreement among major scholars, as I have repeatedly noted, that unprecedented post-World War II global trade and investment imbalances that were strongly associated with manipulator countries (especially China) and their leading export markets (especially the United States) set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis – and its painful, ongoing aftermath.

That is, currency transgressions still strike at the heart of any viable world trading system. As a result, a trade system that simply decides to punt on currency-related abuses because, as Beattie claims, they’re so difficult to define seems as dangerous as a financial regulatory system that punts on insider trading because it’s so difficult to prove. If such regimes can’t respond adequately – as the financial crisis’ eruption teaches – the proper reaction is not to throw in the towel, much less to vilify attempts to respond. It’s either to keep seeking solutions within those systems, or recognize that the regimes are fatally flawed, and put into effect alternatives until better regimes can be created.