Embattled US can't risk slammi

By He Jingjun

US Trade Representative Ron Kirk delivered a speech at the National Press Club recently, announcing that troublesome foreign "trade barriers" would soon be exposed in a new report. Such a statement, in accordance with President Barack Obama's recent plan of "doubling US exports," seem to be clearing up unfair trade obstacles for US exports.

But the US seems to be determined to throw up its own domestic trade barriers even as it uses its economic clout to force others to open their markets. The "buy American" provision of the stimulus package has prompted the withdrawal of Airbus maker European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company from competing for the $35 billion contract to build new refueling tanker planes for the US Air Force.

Meanwhile, generous subsidies given to US cotton growers, to take only one example, force others out of the market and have caused countries like Brazil to suffer from huge losses.

Mexico, one of the US partners within the North American Free Trade Area, recently adopted retalitatory tariffs against the US in response to the unbearable pressure exerted by the US trade protectionism.

As for China, its second largest trade partner, the US has applied further protectionist measures to steel tubes and firmware (the inbuilt programs on electronic devices), after launching trade sanctions on China's tires before Obama's visit to China last November.

The US has long had a protectionist streak. At a time when mercantilist doctrines that held international trade was fixed in volume and domestic markets needed strong protection were dying out in Europe, American leaders from Alexander Hamilton to Abraham Lincoln were still advocat-ing them. It seems that the pendulum is swinging back to this economic isolationism.

Since the launching of negotiations at Doha in 2001, the US has actually abandoned the role of being the leader in international trade. Instead, it has turned to building a multinational free trade pact.

However, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the US didn't want to be a leader of multinational trade either. It began to be unsatisfied with free trade agreements that were almost finished. Many agreements were on the brink of being abandoned.

For instance, the US blamed South Korea for restricting the imports of automobiles and components. It also criticized Columbia for neglecting workers' rights and in-terests and thus delaying the agenda of free trade negotiations.

Now the US is preparing to initiate free trade negotiations with Australia, but the result is hardly optimistic.

The US return to isolationism seemingly contradicts its plan to double its exports, but this is not really the case. Looking at history, one will find that the US trade and diplomatic policy has been unexceptionally based on realism.

For instance, during the Great Depression of the 1930s, every nation threw up protectionist barriers to try and defend their own economies, which ended up choking world trade. In the US, the extremely high tariffs established by the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act of 1930 blocked foreign goods from American markets and contributed to the severity of the global crisis.

Today it's deeply hypocritical for the US to build walls around its own economy while constantly trying to force down the barriers of others.

Such protectionism can only drag down others, while bringing no ultimate benefit to the US.

The author is a member of the editorial board of Hong Kong-based World Chinese magazine. forum@globaltimes.com.cn