By EARL ANTHONY WAYNE
Former U.S. ambassador to Mexico and public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C.
Special to Pulse News Mexico
(The following article first appeared in the U.S. political website “The Hill” and is being republished in Pulse News Mexico with specific prior permission.)
A long-time U.S. trade guru joked last month that as a rule of thumb, he favors trying to manage only one trade war at a time, not multiple trade conflicts at once as the United States is attempting to do.
As the danger of costly missteps and negative consequences with international partners becomes more evident, the United States needs a serious debate over the current approach and making course adjustments. The alternative could leave the United States trying to recoup after paying the price at home and abroad.
The United States has imposed new tariffs on steel and aluminum targeting nations that are long-time allies and friends in Europe and North America for “national security” reasons, rather than focusing on rival and trade bad-boy China, sparking alarms from pundits and experts from across the political spectrum.
The U.S. tariffs have engendered billions of dollars in promised retaliatory tariffs from Canada, Mexico and the European Union, which argue that U.S. tariffs violate trade rules and are unjustified and counterproductive.
Using the “national security” rationale for U.S. trade actions could also damage U.S. producers over the longer term if other countries argue that their security is compromised by importing U.S. corn, soybeans or airplanes and thereby seek to block imports and escape commitments made in the World Trade Organization or bilaterally.
If, on top of this, the United States gets into a tit-for-tat exchange with China over legitimate U.S. concerns about Chinese trade practices, it will be more costly for U.S. businesses and farmers given the $650 billion U.S.-China trade relationship.
There is broad agreement that China should change harmful trade-related practices, but great dismay that the United States has scattered its fire by taking on U.S. allies rather than focusing on China and mobilizing allies to help bring pressure for changes in Chinese steel overproduction or forced technology transfers.
According to press reports, the United States is seeking Chinese commitments to buy U.S. farm and other products in the latest bilateral talks, but it is not clear what commitments are being discussed on the longer-term systemic changes needed in Chinese economic policies.
Serious studies warn of the costs flowing from new U.S. tariffs and others’ retaliation. U.S. farmers will suffer heavily from the retaliatory tariffs targeted on farm products by countries that view the U.S. trade moves as unjustified.
America’s farmers fear losing major parts of their three largest markets — Canada, Mexico and China — as fallout from these conflicts. U.S. business groups have consistently warned about the negative effects of mishandling the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other trade issues including with the new U.S. tariffs.
Such practices will affect other nations’ willingness to work with the U.S. on other international issues, whether it is misbehavior of Iran, Russia or China, or in the case of Mexico, combatting drug trafficking and illegal migration.
Trade and economic disputes are hard to understand and assess. It is easier to pick up catch phrases about “fair” trade agreements or allegedly harmful “trade deficits,” than to absorb the complicated analyses about trade, deficits and their relationship to the massive economic transformations that have swept through America this century.
Yet, not demanding serious explanations and justifications for the current U.S. trade approaches and not pressing for immediate adjustments as merited could well cost the U.S. dearly.
Hardball trade tactics will negatively affect all Americans. Independent trade research firm Trade Partnership Worldwide, for example, finds that the new U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum will cost the United States a net loss of 470,000 jobs (18 jobs lost for every steel/aluminum job gained).
Another study by that same group finds that potential new 25 percent U.S. tariffs on imported autos will result in a net loss of 157,000 U.S. jobs (three jobs lost for every one gained) and a decline in GDP.
The respected Peterson Institute for International Economics argues separately that new auto tariffs would cost 195,000 U.S. jobs and cause a drop in auto production.
Another study by the Peterson Institute argues that tariffs the United States has proposed against China will do serious harm to U.S. technological competitiveness, and the Trade Partnership Worldwide predicts serious U.S. job and output losses from reciprocal U.S. and Chinese tariffs.
The U.S. moves shocked traditional friends. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau protested that the imposition of tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports for “national security” reasons comes when the United States actually sells more steel to Canada than Canada sells to the United States.
Consider the current U.S. trade approach from the perspective of a personal life experience. What would your reaction be to a neighbor who:
* insists there is a problem that does not appear valid to you;
* demands actions that you think will be very harmful;
* redefines the city or neighborhood rules to justify his action; and
* takes punitive steps to force you to accept his demands.
This is not a person one would choose to live next to, if given the choice. Sadly, this is how many partner nations in Europe, Canada, Mexico and Japan likely perceive U.S. tariffs.
The United States and its partners and rivals may end up playing out these trade conflicts aggressively, but the U.S. Congress should insist that the administration provide detailed, in-depth justifications to explain its actions in the face of alarm and criticism.
What are the administration’s studies that led to the measures being imposed? What do they show as the costs for U.S. workers, farmers, businesses and consumers?
How do U.S. positions and tactics get us to good longer-term economic results and maintain a strong U.S. role in the world? Alternative approaches need to be offered and urged as part of a serious discussion.
Now is the time for a concerted effort in Congress and by other elected U.S. representatives to press these issues in public and in private. The costs of misfired trade war tactics for the United States and its citizens need to be made crystal clear and alternative pathways forward must be highlighted.
Earl Anthony Wayne is a public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and career ambassador (ret.) from the U.S. Diplomatic Service, where he served as U.S. ambassador to both Mexico and Argentina, as well as assistant secretary of State for economic and business affairs.