Return of the Trade Enforcement Canard

In defending its tire tariff decision, the White House has glommed on to the “logic” that free trade first requires enforcement of trade agreements.  Scott Lincicome exposes the absurdity of that defense here. But with that fallacy serving to undergird what sounds like a pre-justification for more trade cases and more trade restrictions, let me remind the reader that we already have 299 active antidumping and countervailing duty measures in the United States, resticting or prohibiting imports from 43 different countries.  We have all sorts of restrictions on imported textiles, clothing, footwear, food products, agricultural commodities, lumber, steel, pickup trucks, tobacco, and many, many more products, including tires.  But despite all of this enforcement–of rules that are hard to justify, as they penalize most members of society for the benefit of a connected few–we still don’t have free trade in the United States.  In other words, we’ve had the enforcement, where’s the free trade?

And if the holier-than-thou U.S. government is going to focus on enforcement of rules, then by all means do unto others.  The United States remains baldly and defiantly in violation of its NAFTA commitments to open U.S. roads to Mexican trucks by the year 2000.  The United States remains defiantly in protest of WTO Dispute Settlement Body decisions impugning U.S. cotton subsidies, U.S. prohibitions on gambling services offered by providers in Antigua, the antidumping calculation methodology known as “zeroing,” and the Byrd Amendment.  Trade partners in some of these cases are either retaliating or have been authorized to do so.

The argument that more rigid enforcement leads to freer trade will be tested.  But don’t let the inevitable slew of new 421 cases and related restictions in the name of enforcement fool you.  After the restrictions, the retaliation, and the adoption of similar measures in other countries, free trade will be right around the corner.  The next corner.  Keep looking…

Rep. Flake’s Wise Counsel on the Tire Tariff

Earlier today, Congressman Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, sent a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider his decision to impose a 35 percent tariff on tires imported from China.

Rep. Flake makes all the right points in his letter, reminding the president that:

Your decision to impose duties on Chinese tires is likely to encourage other domestic industries to file their own petitions for relief under Section 421. The potential for an endless cycle of U.S. restrictions and subsequent retaliation from China is the last thing our economic recovery needs.

I wish there were more members of Congress like Rep. Flake. Our Trade Vote Records feature on our web site offers a searchable data base of all major trade votes going back to the mid-1990s. Our data base confirms that Rep. Flake is the most consistent supporter in all of Congress in opposing both subsidies and barriers to trade.

The president should heed Rep. Flake’s wise letter.

Tuesday Links

Gasp! No More Free Bikes

full-rackIn New York City, the public schools are really feeling the pain of recession. I mean, things have gotten so bad according to the New York Times that schools have even had to stop giving away free bicycles:

At the start of school, Ms. Avery gathered her staff to tell them it would be one of the most difficult years they would face. This year, the school will have 29 students to a class, instead of 21, four fewer teachers and fewer incentives for students, such as free bicycles.

Wait. Free bicycles!? Sheesh! When I was a kid, the incentives were gold stars and “success cards.” These days – well, I guess, yesterday – the kids get free bicycles! No wonder, as I’ve shown before, public schools have been getting fatter and fatter for decades; the inflation rate for incentives alone has been astronomical! Too bad student achievement hasn’t risen at the nearly the same incredible rate – or at all.

Correct Answer: None of the Above

The New York Times has an interesting “Op-Art” piece suggesting alternatives to the color-coded terror alert system the government adopted shortly after 9/11. They’re all interesting, and commentator Kurt Anderson gives them serious consideration.

But a fundamental premise of this project (and the color-coded system) is wrong: The government can not tell the people how to feel about threats, and it should not try to. Rather, the government should share the information it has (warts and all), allowing the public to digest it and synthesize it.

The public is fully capable of handling threat information. Giving them more information will put them in a position to protect themselves and the country in thousands of ways that experts could never prescribe. Withholding information while agitating people with emotional dictates is condescension and error.

The color-coded system should be elminated, and it should not be replaced.

Jervis on Afghanistan

Columbia University IR guru Robert Jervis has a smart post at Foreign Policy’s “Af-Pak” blog.  For those who couldn’t get enough at yesterday’s Cato forum on Afghanistan, Jervis’ post is well worth a look:

JERVIS

Prof. Robert Jervis

Most discussion about Afghanistan has concentrated on whether and how we can defeat the Taliban. Less attention has been paid to the probable consequences of a withdrawal without winning, an option toward which I incline. What is most striking is not that what I take to be the majority view is wrong, but that it has not been adequately defended. This is especially important because the U.S. has embarked on a war that will require great effort with prospects that are uncertain at best. Furthermore, it appears that Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan was less the product of careful analysis than of the political need to find a “tough” pair to his attacks on the war in Iraq during the presidential campaign. It similarly appears that in the months since his election he has devoted much more attention to how to wage the war than to whether we need to wage it.

The claim that this is a “necessary war” invokes two main claims and one subsidiary one. The strongest argument is that we have to fight them there so that we don’t have to fight them here. The fact that Bush said this about Iraq does not make it wrong, and as in Iraq, it matters what we mean by “them.”…

[…]

The second part of the question is exactly what withdrawal means. What would we keep in the region? What could we achieve by airpower? How much intelligence would we lose, and are there ways to minimize this loss? It is often said that we withdrew before 9/11 and it didn’t work. True, but the circumstances have changed so much that I don’t find this history dispositive. While al Qaeda resurgence is a real danger, I am struck by the thinness of the argument that in order to combat it we have to fight the Taliban and try to bring peace if not democracy to Afghanistan.

A second argument, made most recently by Frederick Kagan in the September 5-6 Wall Street Journal, is that, to quote from its headline, “A stable Pakistan needs a stable Afghanistan.” But does it really? Are there reasonable prospects for a stable Afghanistan over the next decade no matter what we do? Isn’t there a good argument that part of the problem in Pakistan stems from our continued presence in Afghanistan?

[…]

A third but subsidiary argument is that withdrawal would undermine American credibility around the world. Again, the fact that this is an echo of Vietnam does not make it wrong, but it does seem to me much less plausible than the other arguments. Who exactly is going to lose faith in us, and what are they going to do differently? Much could depend on the course of events in other countries, especially Iraq, which could yet descend into civil war. But if it does, would American appear more resolute – and wiser – for fighting in Afghanistan? Of course if we withdraw and then we or our allies suffer a major terrorist attack many people will blame Obama, and this is a political argument that must weigh more heavily with the White House than it does with policy analysts…

As I hope my ellipses make clear, Jervis’ post is well worth a read.