The indifference and apathy that one finds in Washington from both the Congress and US President Barack Obama on the Doha Round of world trade talks, and the alarm and concern expressed by statesmen elsewhere over the languishing negotiations, mark the end of the post-1945 era of US leadership on multilateral free trade.
Evidence of anxiety outside the US has been clear to everyone for almost a year. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron were concerned enough to join with Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul and Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in appointing Peter Sutherland and me as co-chairs of a High-Level Trade Experts Group in November last year. We held a prestigious panel at Davos with these leaders in January, where, on the occasion of our interim report, we gave full-throated support to concluding Doha. But there was no response from the US government.
Last month, former British prime minister Gordon Brown, former Spanish prime minister Felipe Gonzalez and former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo reminded G20 leaders that in November 2009, at their first meeting in London, they had expressed “a commitment to … conclude the Round in 2010.” And, two weeks ago, the UN met again on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Goal 8 is about instruments such as trade and aid, and MDG 8A commits the UN member nations to “[d]evelop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system.”
However, while practically every country today has embraced preferential free-trade agreements, the recent leader in this proliferation is the US. There, Congress and the president apparently have plenty of time to discuss bilateral FTAs with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, as well as the regional Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), but none for negotiating the non-discriminatory Doha Round, which is languishing in its 10th year of talks.
Indeed, it is notable that, while Obama’s State of the Union address in January last year at least mentioned Doha, his address this past January did not. Obama confined himself to promoting the pending bilateral agreements with Colombia and other emerging-market countries.
Obama’s regrettable retreat from support for the Doha Round is the result of many factors and fallacies. These were highlighted in an “Open Letter to Obama” that I organized and released, over the signatures of nearly 50 of today’s most influential trade experts worldwide, urging a presidential shift in policy toward Doha.
The US president is captive to the country’s labor unions, who buy the false narrative that trade with poor countries is increasing the ranks of the poor in the US by driving down wages. In fact, however, there is plenty of evidence for the rival narrative that rapid and deep labor-saving technological change is what is putting pressure on wages, and that imports of cheap labor-intensive goods that US workers consume are actually offsetting that distress.
Again, Washington lobbyists have bought into the absurd claim of trade experts such as Fred Bergsten that the gain from Doha, as it stands now, is a paltry US$7 billion or so annually. This ignores the far greater losses that a failed Doha Round would entail, for example, by undermining the WTO’s credibility as the principal guarantor of rules-based trade, and by leaving trade liberalization entirely to discriminatory liberalization under preferential bilateral agreements. Again, someone needs to tell Obama that imports create jobs, too, and that his emphasis on promoting US exports alone is bad economics.
Most of all, Obama is badly served on trade by his senior colleagues. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, was opposed to trade liberalization when she ran against Obama for president, and advocated a “pause” in free-trade negotiations. She also misinterpreted the great economist Paul Samuelson as a protectionist, when he said nothing of the kind. She has never recanted.
Likewise, now that Warren Buffett is considered to be Obama’s most trusted economic adviser, it is worth recalling that back in 2003 he produced the astonishing prescription that the best way to reduce the US trade deficit was to allow no more imports than it could finance from its export earnings. An amused and alarmed Samuelson drew my attention to this nutty idea. While Buffett’s prescription of higher taxes for the US’ wealthy is entirely desirable, will Obama realize that a genius in one area may be a dunce in another?
What we need today is for the world’s leading statesmen to stop pussyfooting and to unite in nudging Obama towards a successful conclusion of the Doha Round. That alone would provide the counterweight to the forces that pull him in the wrong direction. It is still not too late.
Jagdish Bhagwati is university professor of economics and law at Columbia University and a senior fellow in international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS