Obama Administration No Longer Follows Precept of Free Trade

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 17 May 2011
by Zhu Yin (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Pak Ng. Edited by Jade Moyano.
In the third round of Sino-U.S. strategic and economic dialogue that just concluded, the U.S. promised to quickly and comprehensively acknowledge China’s market economy status through collaboration with the Sino-U.S. Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade. Although such an attitude was worthy of approval, Americans have indicated in the last two rounds of dialogue that the U.S adopted a delaying strategy concerning China’s market economy status, using it mainly as a sharp weapon of trade protectionism. This was in line with the attitude expressed by the U.S. Department of Commerce last month when it formally launched a joint anti-dumping and countervailing investigation of steel wheels made in China. China’s trade relations with the U.S. has encountered an administration, led by Obama, filled with trade protectionism tendencies.

The Obama administration no longer practices the precept of free trade. The U.S. Trade Representative’s office no longer mentions words such “free trade”, “free economy” or “trade liberalization” in the two trade policy agendas that were published in 2010 and 2011. However, these words were often seen in Bush administration’s reports. We can see from his statements that Obama truly abhors free trade. On the Export-Import Bank of the United States’ annual conference held on March 11, 2010, Obama said,”...if you ask the average American what trade has offered them, they won’t say that their televisions are cheaper, or productivity is higher. They’d say they’ve seen the plant across town shut down, jobs dry up, communities deteriorate. And you can’t blame them for feeling that way...” The tendency of this part of the speech was a typical argument against globalization and free trade.

The Obama administration possesses a dispirited attitude towards economic globalization and trade liberalization. Since a new round of economic globalization began in the 1980’s, there has always been conflict between the force that acts in cooperation with the trend of globalization and the force acting against it. Every administration since Reagan has proactively promoted trade liberalization. Trade liberalization is not only the basic concept of U.S. foreign trade, but also the mainstream U.S. foreign trade policy. Let’s just take the Clinton administration as an example. It had a Democratic Party background, faced demand from domestic political blocs such as enterprises, labor and environmentalists seeking a “fair competitive environment” and unveiled the National Export Strategy in 1993. However, the main inclination of Clinton’s administration was free trade, and it eventually achieved landmark accomplishments such as completing the Uruguay Round Negotiation and creating the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Obama administration, besides implementing an extraordinary emphasis on jobs, doesn’t differ, as compared to the Clinton administration, in promoting a “fairly competitive environment” and establishing the “National Export Initiative”. However, the Obama administration possesses a passive attitude at pushing the Doha Agenda forward. Its trade policy agenda, which has reflected such negative attitude, has not put forth any concrete new ideas to break up deadlocks in the Doha Agenda negotiations. It also has not had the prior U.S. administrations’ boldness in taking the lead in opening up domestic markets; instead, it has requested that other countries make concessions first.

Moreover, the Obama administration advocates the inevitable connection between expansion of exports and restriction of imports. Expanding exports is at the core of Obama administration’s foreign trade policy. At the same time that the Obama administration launched the “National Exports Initiative,” it definitely adopted policies and actions to limit imports. Its biggest steps to restrict imports were the purchase of American goods and the implementation of special protection measures toward tires made in China. In addition, in 2009, the U.S. proactively adopted measures including anti-dumping and countervailing policies to control imports, and there were thirteen tariff duties collected under the name of anti-dumping as well as six tariff duties levied under the tag of countervailing in the same year. Most of the products levied with tariff duties were exported by China.

The Obama administration has used fair trade as an excuse to limit imports; therefore, it is very easy to find words like “fair” in trade policy agendas. The administration seeks to open the markets of opposing countries under the flag of “fair trade”, especially in China. The U.S. not only pressures China on the issue of exchange rate but has utilized the Sino-U.S. strategic and economic dialogue mechanism to demand that China open its markets. While requesting China to open its market, the U.S. also has repeatedly launched “Anti Dumping, Countervailing and Safeguards Measures” investigations at Chinese products. At the same time the U.S. is accusing China for having too much trade surplus, it delays making adjustments towards its own export regulation policies. While claiming that China’s foreign investments and manufacturing policies incline to protect China’s domestic enterprises, the U.S. forces its optical fiber enterprises to have joint ventures with Chinese enterprises and frequently blocks Chinese enterprises from buying American enterprises. The Obama administration has been selling trade protectionism under the flag of “fair trade”; thus, while more employment opportunities have been created for Americans, more and more foreign workers have lost their jobs.


刚刚结束的第三轮中美战略与经济对话中,美方承诺将通过中美商贸联委会以一种合作的方式迅速、全面承认中国市 场经济地位。此种态度虽然值得肯定,但在前两轮对话中,美方也都曾有过类似表示。显然,对中国的市场经济地位,美国采取的是拖延战略,主要是以此作为贸易 保护的利器。这和上个月美国商务部正式对中国钢车轮发起反倾销和反补贴合并调查表明的态度一脉相承。中国对美贸易正遇到一个有着贸易保护主义倾向的奥巴马政府。

  奥巴马政府不再信奉自由贸易。美国贸易代表办公室2010年和2011年公布的两个贸易政策议程中,不再提倡“自由贸易”、“经济自由”或“贸易自由 化”等字样,而这些词组在小布什政府的报告中是常见的。从奥巴马的言论中,我们看到他很厌恶自由贸易。2010年3月11日,奥巴马在美国进出口银行的年 会上说:“如果我们询问普通美国人,贸易带给他们什么?他们不会说电视机便宜了,或者说生产率更高了。他们会说整个城市的工厂关闭了,工作岗位没有了,社 区恶化了。”这段言论的倾向就是典型的反全球化和反自由贸易的论调。

  奥巴马政府对经济全球化与贸易自由化持消极态度。从20世纪80年代新一轮经济全球化以来,一直存在着顺应全球化趋势和反对全球化势力的对立。里根政 府以来的历届美国政府都积极倡导贸易自由化。贸易自由化既是美国对外贸易的基本理念,也是美国对外贸易政策的主流。仅以克林顿政府为例,当时有着民主党背 景的克林顿政府也面临着国内政治集团———企业、 劳工、环保人士———寻求“公平的竞争环境”的要求,并在1993年提出国家出口战略,但克林顿政府的主流是自由贸易,并最终完成乌拉圭回合谈判和建立北 美自由贸易区这些具有标志性意义的成就。奥巴马政府除了更多地强调就业之外,在提出“公平的竞争环境”和“国家出口倡议”等方面并没有与克林顿政府有多大 区别,但是,奥巴马政府对推动多哈议程态度消极。反映这一消极态度的贸易政策议程,没有具体的打破多哈议程谈判僵局的新主张,更没有过去美国政府那种率先 开放本国市场的魄力,而是要求其他国家先让步。

  而且,奥巴马政府倡导扩大出口与抑制进口的必然联系。扩大出口是奥巴马政府对外贸易政策的核心。奥巴马政府在发起“国家出口倡议”的同时,必然在政策 举措上限制进口,购买美国货和对中国轮胎实施特保措施是其限制进口的最大贡献。此外,2009年美国积极采取反倾销和反补贴等措施限制进口,2009年以 反倾销名义征收的关税有13起,以反补贴名义征收的关税有6起,被征收产品绝大多数为中国出口产品。

  奥巴马政府为限制进口找的理由就是公平贸易。所以,在贸易政策议程中找到“公平”的字样很容易。奥巴马政府在“公平贸易”的旗帜下寻求打开对方的市 场,尤其是对中国。美国不仅在汇率上向中国施压,而且利用中美战略与经济对话机制要求中国开放市场;在要求中国开放市场的同时,却对中国产品不断发起“两 反一保”的调查;在指责中国过多贸易顺差的同时,却迟迟不对自己的出口管制政策做出调整;在指责中国的外资政策和产业政策倾向保护国内产业的同时,却迫使 美国的光纤企业与中国企业合资,并且经常阻止中国企业收购美国企业。奥巴马政府在“公平贸易”的旗帜下贩卖贸易保护主义,在为美国人创造更多就业机会的同 时,让更多外国人失业。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: America’s Economic and Political Chaos Has Implications for Australia

Germany: Friedrich Merz’s Visit to Trump Succeeded because It Didn’t Fail

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Turmoil in Los Angeles: Key Test of Trump’s Power

Topics

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Germany: Peace Report 2025: No Common Ground with Trump

Australia: America’s Economic and Political Chaos Has Implications for Australia

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Turmoil in Los Angeles: Key Test of Trump’s Power

Related Articles

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China