Key G-20 Item Is Latest Threat To World Trade: WTO's Ever- Expanding Definition Of "Protectionism"

Is anybody else getting the feeling that government public service ads reminding us to eat a balanced diet or funding of school crossing guards will soon be labeled a "protectionist" measure? And that, moreover, Smoot and Hawley are rising from the grave?

There is a narrative that keeps getting repeated in the press and in politicians' speeches that "protectionist' measures are on the rise because of the economic crisis. But where is the evidence?

Take a close read of the actual WTO March 26 report on this subject. What exactly is the cause of the breathless fears about growing protectionism? Would it be the unilateral tariff cuts in the seemingly ominous list of "trade measures" countries have taken since September which is attached to the report? 

It seems that between what's in the actual report and the press reporting about it, a lot of new protectionism has been created - from thin air. Because if you read the small print, you will see that the scary "trade measures" list is just notification of any and all policy actions take by WTO nations. That includes new tariff cuts, filing of anti-dumping cases just like before the crisis when there is dumping, and - heaven forbid - ensuring food and toy safety. 

The first page of the actual WTO report even notes: "There is no indication of an imminent descent into high intensity protectionism involving widespread resort to trade restriction and retaliation."  So, what is on the list?  

Food Safety Measures:

• China's halt of Irish pork imports after Ireland warned importers of dioxin contamination;
• Russia's suspension of pork imports from U.S. plants after on-site inspection of the facilities; 
• U.S. defunding of a carbon-intensive, food safety-threatening program to facilitate U.S.-slaughtered chickens being shipped to China for processing and back to U.S. for sale.

Consumer & Public-Safety Measures:

• India and Argentina's toy-safety policies; 
  
• U.S. defunding of a Bush program that circumvented congressional requirements that Mexican-domiciled trucks must meet U.S. driver and vehicle standards to access U.S. roads.

Economic Stimulus Measures:

• Paraguay's 'Buy Paraguayan' preferences for government expenditures;
• China's encouragement of colleges and schools to buy local; 
• Taiwan's encouragement of buy and hire local on construction projects; 
• Japan's local governments encouraging citizens to buy local; 
• U.S. domestic preference for domestic infrastructure spending.

National-Defense and Immigration Measures:

• The immigration policies of Malaysia and United States;
• India's policies relating to foreign ownership of defense production and aviation.

Whatever arguments can be made about the desirability of any of these domestic policies on questions ranging from food and consumer safety, to national security, immigration and domestic stimulus and infrastructure spending, they are subjects of national political decision-making about which one would find nary a tariff or quota involved.    

Certainly even the most ardent defenders of the WTO see that labeling every other domestic policy "protectionism" will only undermine public support for the policies that really are critical to obtain the benefits of open trade?

Comments

[Simon Lester]

I think the WTO itself would agree, as the WTO report makes clear that: "The inclusion of any measure in this table implies no judgement by the WTO Secretariat on whether or not such measure, or its intent, is protectionist in nature. Moreover, nothing in the table implies any judgement, either direct or indirect, on the consistency of any measure referred to in this table with the provisions of any WTO agreement or such measure's impact on, or relationship with, the global financial crisis."

[Don Juan of Austria]

Baloney. You don't get to list all these things in a report that says "protectionist" over and over, and then slap a footnote on and say "I didn't mean it."

We should pull out of the WTO.

[unlawflcombatnt]

"We should pull out of the WTO"

I agree with Don Juan of Autria.

We should just get out of the WTO.

Besides that, what's wrong with "protectionism" in the 1st place?

That's what governments are supposed to do—protect the wellbeing of their citizens, including the saving of its citizens' jobs.

Count me as a "protectionist," and proud of it.