Paradigm lost?
US Trade Policy as an Instrument of Foreign Policy
引文地址：https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news18_e/ddgra_09feb18_e.htm
思考：开放市场，能让我们走向民主，拥抱世界和平吗？
Speaking at the American University in Washington D.C. on 5 February,
Deputy Director-General Alan Wolff presented a paper that “attempts to
trace the thread of trade policy for peace from its inception”. He
underlined that “trade and foreign policy have been intertwined
throughout history” and that history has taught us that failure to
maintain openness to trade leads to “instability, and a threat to peace,
both internally and internationally”.
Alan Wm. Wolff
American University
Washington DC
February 5, 2018
Summary
For most of the last 100 years, the United States has
entered into trade negotiations based upon the belief that open markets
foster democracy which in turn supports the maintenance of world
peace. This grand credo – that increased trade bolsters the prospects
for peace - indicates that U.S. trade policy - aside from its announced
goal the opening of foreign markets – has also had an important
foreign policy component. In fact, trade policy has been a bedrock of
U.S. foreign policy dating from the Second World War. If this is no
longer the objective of U.S. trade policy, this largely unnoticed
change in policy is nothing short of revolutionary.
Some clarifications are in order to keep the overarching
policy objective in perspective: First, the fact that this high foreign
policy aim was embraced by political leaders did not regularly affect
actual detailed trade negotiations. In the trenches, U.S. trade
negotiators, at least for the last several generations, have apparently
been oblivious to the greater purpose that their efforts served. They
simply sought to open foreign markets for U.S. goods, services, and
investment. Second, foreign policy objectives can be served not only
by opening markets but, as has been the case, through weaponizing trade
though the imposition of sanctions.
The question examined today is whether the grand article of
faith – that obtaining more open markets leads to the creation of
democracies which in turn improves the prospects for world peace - is
still accepted U.S. dogma and whether it is operational as current
policy. If it is not, and the evidence suggests that this might be the
case, the change in policy, is profound. If there has been a loss of
faith, it is likely to have occurred through erosion over time, and is
not solely a question of a new administration coming into office as a
result of the 2016 Presidential election.
This paper attempts to trace the thread of trade policy for
peace from its inception, and provide some evidence of whether
somewhere along the way that policy was forgotten or discarded. If so,
it is a paradigm lost.
Why is this so very important? It means that the basis for
U.S. support for the multilateral trading system must now be found in
pragmatism, in narrower commercial self-interest, and perhaps much less
if at all on the basis of America’s foreign policy interests.
If the sole motivation for participation in the world
trading system is obtaining reciprocity, can the system be maintained,
much less improved? Which countries will act and to what extent for
the global public good? This question is independent of providing
“special and differential treatment” for developing countries. The
answer to the question of how much countries will be willing to act on
the basis of a broader definition of national interest is fundamental
to the well-being of all.
Introduction
Trade and foreign policy have been intertwined throughout
history, with foreign policy often tailored to promote trade interests.
In the 3rd century BC, during the Han Dynasty, China used its
military power to maintain the Silk Road for its value for trade. In
the year 30 BC, Rome conquered Egypt in large part to have a better
supply of grain. In the 18th century, the British East India Company
drove British foreign policy toward South Asia based on British trading
interests. In the mid-19th century, trade dominated the thinking of
the U.S. government in its relations with East Asia. Commodore Perry
sailed to Japan 1853-54 in order to open that market to U.S. trade, and
eleven years later the United States concluded the Treaty of Wangxia
with China, again to support trade. In each case, foreign policy was
enlisted to serve national trade interests.
