Since the collapse last July of the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round, the object of which is to enable the expansion of international trade flows by persuading the WTO’s 153 member countries to slash tariffs and trade-distorting subsidies, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy has refused to accept defeat. Lamy pressed as hard as he could to put a deal together by the end of 2008, so it would be in President Barack Obama’s in-box, come January 20, 2009, ready for him to put on the final touches. (Of course, the diminished support in the U.S. for trade wasn’t the only major worry for the WTO negotiators, but it was a major concern, given the importance of obtaining American support.) The idea was that despite the many protectionist IOUs that he had accumulated on the campaign trail, once in the White House, President Obama would not abdicate America’s international economic leadership by walking away from a deal that was all-but-done.) But the talks failed again in December, and the Doha process went back into intensive care. And now, President Obama seems content to put multilateral trade liberalization on indefinite hold.

But Pascal Lamy, a well-known marathon runner, doesn’t give up easily. He has been issuing a steady stream of warnings in recent months of the dangers associated with rising protectionism measures that are being taken by some WTO member countries. This is especially dangerous, Lamy has explained — repeatedly — as the current global wave of economic nationalism comes as the international economy is in a deep global recession, and trade flows are shrinking. In late January, Lamy issued a confidential 14-page report to the WTO’s 153 member countries, in which he singled out some recent protectionist developments in the European Union, India, South Korea, Indonesia and the United States as reason for particular concerns. Later this month, Lamy is expected to follow up with a second, even more detailed, report. Lamy’s basic argument is based on clear economic reasoning: if political leaders could now find the will to bring the Doha Round to a successful conclusion, that would constitute an economic stimulus package that would help expand international trade flows and help jump-start the global economy. In short, Pascal Lamy has been thinking strategically.

The chief executive officers of America’s major corporations are also supposed to be strategic thinkers, always looking over the horizon for looming economic troubles. So what has the premier corporate lobby in Washington, D.C. done by way of advocating what America’s top international trade priorities should be? The Business Roundtable — whose members include such sophisticated global operators as Caterpillar Inc., General Electric, FedEx, IBM, Cummins Engines, Deere, Procter & Gamble, and dozens more — has dropped its previous support for the Doha Round as a top priority. Nearing the end of last year, just when Lamy’s attempts to rescue Doha were at their vital make-it-or-fail point, the BRT’s corporate leaders decided to drop from the BRT website all mention of the Doha Round as any sort of a priority. BRT President John Castellani has declined repeated entreaties to comment on the Doha negotiations.

You could call it: small ball.

*** Continue reading →

Reams of newsprint, and considerable air-time on television news programs, have been devoted recently to the controversial Buy American stipulations that require the use of only American-made steel in federal infrastructure spending — highways, ports, airports, railways, and so forth — that Congress inserted in President Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package. But as often happens when hot political issues meet the usual flurries of press attention in 24-hour news cycles, the basic economic point as to whether Buy American makes sense, or doesn’t, has tended to be obscured. But it’s really pretty simple.

Richard Fisher got right to the nub of the matter in just two lines. “Protectionism is the crack cocaine of economics,” observed the witty president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in a recent speech. “It provides a temporary high but is instantly addictive and leads to certain economic death.”

For sure, that prospect of certain economic death extends even to the advocates of Buy American laws themselves. This is perhaps the strangest thing about the whole controversy: the most ardent Buy American proponents would quickly see their own businesses ruined, if those laws were applied to their own business practices.

President Obama, to his credit, has tried to limit the damage that has been done to America’s international economic prestige by saying that these are no times for Beggar Thy Neighbor policies. But Obama is the man who shares much of the blame for creating the confusion in the public’s mind in the first place, en route to the Oval Office as the candidate of economic nationalism. At one point during last year’s presidential campaign, Obama took the position that the government should be required to buy only American-made motorcycles, referring to that American icon, Harley-Davidson. Obama made fun of Republican rival John McCain for not going along with that idea. Nobody — especially McCain, an instinctive free trader who apparently didn’t know enough about basic global economic realities to respond effectively in terms that ordinary voters could easily understand — pointed out that if Obama’s economic prescription for Harley were to be taken, the dose of protectionism would kill the corporate patient.

Last week, on his first foreign trip as president, Obama had to back peddle the Buy American cause when he flew across the Canadian border to visit Ottawa, marking Obama’s first trip on foreign soil in his presidency. And he was subjected to a little lecture by his Canadian host, who (smartly) used terms that American presidents are not used to hearing from their trading partners.

It’s not hard to see why the Buy American subject has become an embarrassment in respected international economic circles. Let’s begin with a quick look at the estimable members of the American Iron and Steel Institute, whose lobbying with the congressional steel caucus drove the Buy American provisions in the stimulus bill. Try to imagine a world where the domestic steel manufacturers would themselves have to Buy American.

*** Continue reading →

Hillary Clinton has been in Jakarta yesterday and earlier today, completing the second leg of her inaugural “listening” tour of four key Asian capitals this week. Clinton’s Asia week began in Tokyo on Feb. 16. The U.S. secretary of state has just flown to Seoul (it’s already Thursday evening in Asia), and will wrap up her week on Sunday, after two days in Beijing.

In each city, naturally, there is great interest in what Clinton’s visit will likely foreshadow for the direction of President Obama’s evolving diplomatic agenda. For observers who track trade issues, particular attention focuses on Clinton’s own perceived emerging role as a player in forming international economic policies. While the administration is still just getting started, the initial perceptions in Washington are that as secretary of state, Clinton could well be far more deeply involved in trade than any of her recent predecessors. There are several reasons for this.

*** Continue reading →