Foreign Policy and Trade

MAKING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE means . . . having a foreign policy that is consistent and represents an appropriate role for America in the world community . . . promotes America’s interests through negotiation and co-operation, not force . . . protects the interests of American citizens . . . recognizes the sovereign rights of other countries.

POSITION SUMMARY:

Foreign policy must be based on an understanding that America is part of a world community. We cannot allow our foreign policy to be dictated by the concerns of other nations. But we also cannot ignore the concerns of other countries and dictate terms to other countries.

We cannot afford – either financially or strategically -- to “go it alone” in any matter of foreign policy. We must make diplomacy – not military or economic might --- the principle tool of foreign policy.

[Related issues are discussed on separate sections on Economy and Jobs and National Security.]

DISCUSSION:  

Development assistance, drug enforcement, disease eradication, climate change, genocide, population control . . .  Almost anything you can think of has a foreign policy aspect to it. There are far more dimensions to foreign policy than I can ever expect to understand—and I have little desire to become an expert on the subject. 

My primary foreign policy concern is with its consequences for trade, and how the needs of the American economy and American workers are reflected in our foreign policy. 

As discussed in the second half of this Issues topic, our foreign trade policies have been developed very much independent of our foreign policy efforts.  However, our ability to negotiate favorable trade agreements is very much affected by the state of our diplomatic relations with foreign governments.   Because a favorable climate of governmental relations is a prerequisite to beneficial trade relations, it is necessary to begin this section with a few observations on the state of our foreign relations.

America is the only remaining super-power and the greatest economy on earth. But we are in danger of losing our status as a world leader because we have lost the respect of our allies and most of the rest of the world.

For decades, Americans foreign policy has been, at best, ambiguous.  At some times, its core objective seems to have been the spreading of democracy and the imposition of America’s version of economic policies on countries throughout the world.  At other times it, its core objectives seem to have been on promoting social interests and protecting human rights.

At some times, our foreign policy has emphasized cooperation and consensus building.  At still other times, its core feature seems to have been founded on the premise that America has no need to be concerned with world opinion and can do whatever it wants.

The notion that America is right, and anyone who disagrees with us is wrong, is not the basis for an effective foreign policy in the modern world.  We are members of a world community, and we have to start acting like it. 

America’s ability to be a leader in addressing, and solving, world problems requires that we be perceived as a nation whose values, goals and principles are worth following, and emulating.  But we have failed to establish and maintain a foreign policy that demonstrates consistency in our goals.  What we say and what we do are frequently not the same.  

We profess to have a foreign policy that endorses a worldwide preservation of human rights, but we do little about the human rights violations of governments if we do not have an economic interest in the region.  

We are quick to criticize foreign leaders who torture their opponents, but we torture foreign citizens in the name of national security.

America’s ability to be a leader in addressing world problems requires that we show the rest of the world, by example and an inclusive approach to the world community, that we understand we are part of a world community.  But, on many issues, we continue to go our own way. For example,

We refused to agree the Kyoto Protocol on the environment.

We refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

We have refused to assist in UN Population Fund programs.

America’s ability to be a world  leader requires that we acknowledge the sovereignty of other nations and respect their cultures.  Unfortunately, we have recently followed a policy that ignores these precepts and requires, as a condition of our assistance, that other countries conform to our views of governance--even when we do not.  For example: 

What works for the United States is not necessarily appropriate for all other countries.  While I am all in favor of promoting social and political stability, I do not agree that our form of “democracy” per se is the only means of achieving this goal—nor is it, in and of itself, necessarily an appropriate model for all countries. 

The world perception of America is also adversely affected by the belief, founded in the positions espoused by our “leaders,” that our policies are dominated by Christian Right. This is of particular significance to the followers of Islam.  Islam is the world’s second largest religion and is the majority religion in forty countries—many of which are our trading partners and/or hold oil reserves vital to our economy.  Their perception of our intolerance for their religion, and the proposition that our foreign policy is dictated by biblical prophecies of the “End of Days,” remains at the core of many of our conflicts.

Some Americans cling to the belief that we do not need to care about the rest of the world.  But they are wrong.   We live in a global world.  What we do affects other countries, and what they do affects us. 

We depend on other countries for raw materials to feed our industries—shrinking as they may be.  We depend on the rest of the world to buy our products.  We are also dependent on other nations for the stability of the U.S. dollar.  Pollution and global warming are world problems, not just ours.  

We need other countries as trading partners--and as military partners.  Our international interests are best served by worldwide economic, military and social stability.  Achieving that stability should be the focus of our foreign policy.

In promoting our national objectives, we must demonstrate respect for the sovereignty of other nations and the cultures of their people.  We cannot continue a policy based on imposing our will on the rest of the world.  We must pursue a policy based on civil persuasion, and an appeal to self-interest.  Our foreign policy should always be based on what is best for us, as a nation, and for our citizens. But our needs, and interests, are not independent of those of other countries. 

We do not need to be loved; but we cannot afford to be hated. 

We should not aspire to being feared; but we should aspire to being respected.

It is also hypocritical when we support the expansion of the military capability in some countries while opposing it in others. The countries we choose to arm today may be our enemies tomorrow.  We also have no meaningful control over what happens to the arms and weapons we sell to other countries--and very little ability to prevent them from falling into the hands outlaw nations and terrorist groups.  If we truly seek world peace, we cannot continue to support military expansion around the world—no matter how beneficial military sales may be to American businesses.  

Threats posed by "rogue nations" and "terrorist states" are threats to every country.  Genocide and mass starvation in countries torn by civil strife are problems that concern all countries.  We cannot continue to be perceived as the world’s bully by telling countries what they can and cannot do based solely on out preferences.  We must cause our allies to act more forcefully in voicing world opposition to such threats.

Foreign aid remains a vital tool of foreign policy.  But it is effective only as long as we retain control of what we give and what we get.  We have given up much of this control by becoming the primary funding source for agencies such as the International Monetary Fund and the Export-Import Bank—whose assistance and investment decisions are made largely independent of our national interest and where our funds are disbursed without Congressional oversight.   On the other hand, Congress has also established foreign assistance, trade programs and economic development programs that are administered by agencies --  such as the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce (and others) -- independent of the foreign policy activities of the Department of State.

Even Congress itself has contributed to our inability to pursue a cohesive and consistent foreign policy.   At least a dozen different committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives have something to say about matters affecting foreign policy.  Although both houses of Congress have committees focusing specifically on matters of foreign policy — the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs — the committees that supervise the other agencies that maintain foreign assistance programs also influence what our foreign policy is and how it is implemented.

Trade concessions are also vital tools of foreign policy.  However, we have already given away much of our national authority to give trade concessions in bi-lateral negotiated agreements without furthering our interests in the expansion of free trade.   In addition, we have proven ourselves to be unwilling to enforce all negotiated provisions of trade agreements —such as those dealing with environmental concerns, working conditions and human rights--when doing so is contrary to the interests of “Corporate America.” 

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the American foreign policy lacks consistency.  The Secretary of State, the U.S. Trade Representative and our Ambassadors to major countries are political appointees.  As administrations change, so do they.    In our increasingly partisan political climate, political ideology plays an increasing role in foreign policy.  As a result, the “message” we send to the rest of the world that our country is in a constant state of change.  The governments with whom we do business need to be able to depend on consistency, and we are not giving it to them.

The only way to mitigate these often abrupt changes in foreign policy that occur with new Presidential administrations is for Congress to exert a greater degree of control over matters of foreign policy.

As a specific foreign policy issue, I believe that we must normalize diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba.

FOREIGN TRADE:

We do have a national interest in maintaining a strong world economy.  We do have an interest in developing the economies of other countries--both as consumers of the goods we produce and as suppliers of goods that we need.  But, the United States is still the world's largest economy--and world-wide economic expansion still depends on a strong American economy.

"Free trade" may be appropriate, and even necessary, in the long term.  However, we cannot continue to pursue policies that weaken the American economy--and does little to improve the economic state of the citizens of our trading partners.

America is one country, and we are all citizens of that country.  Citizenship includes “Corporate America,” and business has every right to be represented in American foreign policy in general, and trade policy in particular.  But what is good “Corporate America” is not necessarily good for the American people. 

"Free trade" has not reduced the number of American jobs. It has, however, reduced the number of good-paying "middle class" jobs and corporations move to take advantage of lower wages and limited regulations of other countries.

Part of the blame for this movement of jobs is rightly blamed on the wage and benefit demands made by organized labor. But a greater part of the blame lies in our failure to require our trading partners to establish and enforce the labor rights laws and environmental protection laws that were contemplated when the "free trade" movement began. The result is the well documented "race to the bottom" as countries compete for new businesses.

America has surrendered the formulation of its trade policy to the interests of “Corporate America”--and that has to change.

In 1962, Congress created the Office of the United States Trade Representative [USTR] to separate the commercial interests of trade from U.S. foreign policy goals.  The USTR [whose head is a Cabinet member, although he holds the title “Ambassador], is responsible for developing and coordinating U.S. international trade, commodity, and direct investment policy, and overseeing negotiations with other countries.

In 1974, Congress established the private sector advisory committee system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and trade negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests. The advisory committees provide information and advice with respect to U.S. negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before entering into trade agreements, on the operation of any trade agreement once entered into, and on other matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of U.S. trade policy.

America does not have a trade policy.  What we have is a vast collection of trade agreements and treaties that serve different purposes and reflect different interests based on our relations with individual countries. 

Through our membership in the World Trade Organization, we have essentially delegated the formulation of our trade policies and practices to an independent organization whose principle objective is to liberalize the rules of trade.  By virtue of our participation in the WTO, we are bound by its various agreements—all of which are negotiated in secrecy and not subject to Congressional oversight.  Through our acceptance of WTO agreements, we have surrendered much of our ability to pursue policies necessary to address the needs of our domestic economy.  For example:

The WTO Agreement on Government Procurement [GPA] specifically requires national governments to purchase goods and services based only on price and performance criteria.  Therefore, we are limited in our ability to promote American economic recovery through “Buy American” policies.

The GPA allows foreign businesses to sue the United States--and even state and local governments--for violations of the GPA.

America is one of only 27 of the 143 WTO member nations to have agreed to the GPA. That is, we have "self-imposed" a handicap on our ability to confront our economic problems.

Our “free trade” agreements may promote a “barrier free” movement of goods and services — and even capital, but they have failed to result in improvements in the quality of life of American citizens -– or even the citizens of our trading partners.   “Efficient markets” may be good for business, but efficient markets don’t put food on American table.  Trade agreements must reflect the needs of the American people, not just the desires of “Corporate America.”

The bias towards the needs and desires of “Corporate America” in our various trade agreements has also significantly impaired our standing with the people of the countries with which we trade.  "Free Trade" has promoted a "race to the bottom"  as nations around compete for business while ignoring the need for stricter environmental regulations and labor laws.  Increasing business access to foreign markets rarely benefits the people of those countries—especially if it only leads to exploitation.

If we expect to be a world leader and promote our individual welfare, we cannot continue to pursue a trade policy through a secret process that operates on a piecemeal basis.   

To comment on this issue in the Issues Forum, click here

_____________________________

No Very

Do you have feedback? (Optional)

Enter Word Verification in box below