The war on terror appears to be causing a surge in protectionism. Some anti-terrorist warriors are so worked up about immigrants that they want to build a wall along the entire US-Mexican border. They are also fighting the proposed takeover of US ports by a Dubai company, because they fear terrorists could gain vital intelligence from the investments. In Europe, the movement to stop inflows of migrants from Muslim countries is extremely popular.
These developments do not constitute more protectionism in the usual meaning of the term, where private interests subvert the public good, as when farmers charge higher prices because competitive imports are restricted. National security concerns are not foolish. While a nation has a clear interest in the benefits of free and open trade, it also has a vital interest in its citizens' safety.
National security versus globalization is not an either-or issue, though they sometimes come into conflict with each other, so balancing them is the key to successful policy.
US President George W. Bush, for example, is seeking balance on the immigration issue by proposing to restrict, but not eliminate, guest worker entry. His proposal is the right approach when guest workers could be terrorists. Naturally, the greater the terrorist threat on the border, the more restrictive the policy should be.
Compensating for the expected diminution of guest workers on the global stage is a likely increase in outsourcing, which provides an alternative and potentially more attractive way to import labor services when globalization is tainted by terrorism.
Like guest workers, outsourcing imports labor services, but the foreign workers stay in their own backyards. Either the desired service is performed from abroad -- telemarketing, for example -- or the work is sent abroad for processing and later imported to the home country (in Europe, more and more industrial work is being outsourced from West to East). Outsourcing keeps terrorists -- and other foreigners who would get expensive welfare subsidies -- at bay without sacrificing the benefits of globalization.
Bush may be right on guest workers, but his controversial proposal to have a Dubai-based company run six US ports is a big mistake. In a safer world, the deal would go unnoticed -- and rightfully so. But US public opinion, worried about the threat of terrorism, seems set against the takeover.
Free traders are dismayed. They take popular opposition to the deal as a sign that the US' commitment to an open economy may be waning. But after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, is it a "frenzy" for Americans to demand greater public safety and national security from their elected officials?
In this age of terrorism, doctrines like free trade must be redefined to include the public's interest in "goods" like safety, as well as more conventional goods like televisions and cars. Otherwise, such doctrines lose their relevance.
The transfer of potentially strategic information about ports into foreign and perhaps unfriendly hands clearly carries with it national security risks. It is futile for the Bush administration to deny it. Even the US Coast Guard could not rule out that the company's assets could be used for terrorist operations.
Banning the takeover, on the other hand, would mean less efficient management of the ports, since the Dubai-based company is considered a better manager than the current one. This would mean a loss for the US, as some of the efficiency achieved by the Dubai firm would pass on to US ports in the form of higher lease payments.
This case requires balancing national security risks with efficiency gained from better management. Experts argue that the probability of a terrorist attack because of the Dubai takeover is small. Should the damage inflicted by a terrorist attack also be small, there would be no problem.
But the damage inflicted by an attack might be tremendous, because ports are thought to be one of the few ways terrorists might smuggle nuclear weapons into the US. Because of this, Americans can't afford to take even the minutest of chances with their ports. The American public understands this, even if their president does not.
Free traders shouldn't be dismayed. Rather than being protectionism in the usual sense, saying no to the Dubai takeover reflects the desire to maximize the public interest more broadly and properly defined. This is the opposite of protectionism.
Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Copyright: Project Syndicate
As it has striven toward superiority in most measures of the Asian military balance, China is now ready to challenge the undersea balance of power, long dominated by the United States, a decisive advantage crucial to its ability to deter blockade and invasion of Taiwan by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). America expended enormous treasure to develop the technology, logistics, training, and personnel to emerge victorious in the Cold War undersea struggle against the former Soviet Union, and to remain superior today; the US is not used to considering the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)
The annual summit of East Asia and other events around the ASEAN summit in October and November every year have become the most important gathering of leaders in the Indo-Pacific region. This year, as Laos is the chair of ASEAN, it was privileged to host all of the ministerial and summit meetings associated with ASEAN. Besides the main summit, this included the high-profile East Asia Summit, ASEAN summits with its dialogue partners and the ASEAN Plus Three Summit with China, Japan and South Korea. The events and what happens around them have changed over the past 15 years from a US-supported, ASEAN-led
President William Lai’s (賴清德) first Double Ten National Day address had two strategic goals. For domestic affairs, the speech aimed to foster consensus on national identity, strengthen the country and unite the Taiwanese against a Chinese invasion. In terms of cross-strait relations, the speech aimed to mitigate tensions in the Taiwan Strait and promote the coexistence and prosperity of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in China and the Republic of China (ROC). Lai is taking a different stance from previous Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administrations on domestic political issues. During his speech, he said: “The PRC could not be the
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army is pressuring Taiwan using high intensity tactics to tire out Taiwanese forces and force them into making mistakes, The Economist cited Navy Commander Admiral Tang Hua (唐華) as saying in an interview published on Thursday last week. China is “using an ‘anaconda strategy’ to squeeze the island,” he said, adding that it is “slowly, but surely” increasing its presence around the nation. “They are ready to blockade Taiwan at any time they want,” Tang said. It is welcome to see a high-level official give an interview to international media on this matter. Although Taiwan is one
RSS