No matter how much some US presidential candidates might deride free trade, it remains the backbone of the US economy. Without it, the country would become significantly poorer and its global influence would diminish significantly. So why has bashing free trade become a key theme in this year’s US presidential race?
One of the clearest reasons for this is that economic anxiety is widespread in the US, which is still reeling from the aftereffects of the 2008 financial crisis. Too many Americans are working fewer hours and earning less than they once did. They are tired of the “status quo,” and the presidential candidates are right to address their concerns.
However, introducing protectionist measures is a quack cure that would solve nothing; on the contrary, it would only exacerbate the economy’s problems. Free trade is not a liability for the US economy; it is a necessity. The US has negotiated free-trade agreements with 20 countries, and while these countries represent only 10 percent of the rest of the world economy, in recent years they have purchased nearly half of all US exports.
Furthermore, free trade benefits working-class families and low-income groups. Surges in cheap imports have greatly increased US workers’ spending power. One study calculated that the median-income earner in the US would lose 29 percent of their purchasing power if the country were to be closed to trade; the poorest in the US would forfeit as much as 62 percent of their purchasing power.
The US is in a unique position to reap the benefits of free trade, so its leaders are right to be working to secure trade agreements with the world’s most important economic regions — Europe and Asia. The proposed trade deal with the EU — the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — would boost US exports to the EU by US$300 billion annually, adding US$125 billion to the US’ annual GDP. It would also increase the typical US family’s purchasing power by nearly US$900. Europeans would reap similar gains; that is the nature of mutually beneficial free-trade agreements.
US workers, farmers and businesses are also positioned to benefit greatly from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement with Asia. Many countries in the Asia-Pacific region maintain steep barriers against imports from the US. The TPP would lower tariffs and allow consumers in Asia to buy more US products. This could, according to research conducted by the Peterson Institute, boost US incomes by 0.4 percent — about US$77 billion per year.
To be sure, free trade is not trouble-free. The costs often are very focused, while the benefits are more widely dispersed, and the negative consequences can be very concrete; competition from Mexico can force US workers to accept a wage cut or cause their workplaces to be relocated across the border.
What Americans need are political leaders with the courage to pursue a balanced approach to free trade, championing its long-term benefits, while delivering short-term relief to those at risk of displacement. For example, US legislators could ease economic anxiety by allocating more resources to retraining schemes and job programs.
Concluding the trade deals now on the table with Asia and Europe would not only demonstrate political leadership; it would also underline the US’ commitment to preserving the international order. Speaking as a former NATO secretary-general and former prime minister of a longstanding US ally, I urge the US presidential candidates to stop bashing free trade and begin working toward a balanced approach, one that eases economic anxiety while ensuring US prosperity in the decades to come.
The US does not need to be made “great again.” It remains the world’s preeminent power, because it has the world’s preeminent economy. The challenge facing the US is to ensure that its greatness lasts far into the future, and doing so will require coupling its long-standing pursuit of free trade with policies addressing the very real needs of the small number of Americans for whom the costs outweigh the benefits.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark and secretary-general of NATO, is founder and chairman of Rasmussen Global.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath