Joe Biden administration takes another step away from liberal trade
The US’s lack of interest in fast-track authority is telling
06 July 2021 - 17:58
bybloomberg.com
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
US trade representative Katherine Tai. Picture: SARAH SILBIGER/REUTERS
Last week, President Joe Biden lost his ability to conclude international trade agreements without the close involvement of Congress. You might wonder, so what? In practical terms, the end of his Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) makes no difference. It isn’t as though Biden had been trying to get his fast-track dispensation renewed, and he’s shown no ambition to forge big new trade-promoting agreements in any event.
All true. Yet the unlamented expiration of the TPA is still worth noting. It marks one more step away from the US’s long-term commitment to liberal trade.
Congress granted the president fast-track authority to strike trade deals in 1974. From time to time, the delegation comes to an end and needs to be renewed. Previous administrations have generally wanted to maintain the arrangement, knowing that striking new deals is difficult without it. Trading partners are wary of granting concessions when they know the White House can’t come to terms and sign off on its own. Trade deals are complex, balancing perceived costs and benefits across a wide range of issues. They’re at great risk of unravelling if Congress is free to rewrite the US position line by line after the fact.
Few would disagree that to be a credible partner in such talks the US needs to grant the president and his advisers power to negotiate unilaterally. The TPA’s critics over the years have understood this and been commendably frank about their reasoning. They don’t want the US to be a credible partner, because they don’t want to promote trade.
The Biden administration has lately been engaged in trade talks with the UK and Kenya. Its lassitude over the TPA shows how much it cares about wrapping up those agreements. More broadly, US relations with friends and allies around the world depend in no small part on trade and commerce. Standing aside while other countries deepen their trade relationships weakens US power and influence. It denies the US a voice in shaping global standards as patterns of trade activity shift and new issues (such as the strengthening of supply chains) arise.
In a recent congressional hearing, US trade representative Katherine Tai deflected questions about the TPA, saying that the administration first needed to rethink the objectives of trade agreements. The objectives don’t need rethinking. For decades, the US has built its strength and global standing on trade and competition. Lowering barriers to trade serves its interests, and everybody else’s. The sooner the administration grasps this, the better.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Joe Biden administration takes another step away from liberal trade
The US’s lack of interest in fast-track authority is telling
Last week, President Joe Biden lost his ability to conclude international trade agreements without the close involvement of Congress. You might wonder, so what? In practical terms, the end of his Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) makes no difference. It isn’t as though Biden had been trying to get his fast-track dispensation renewed, and he’s shown no ambition to forge big new trade-promoting agreements in any event.
All true. Yet the unlamented expiration of the TPA is still worth noting. It marks one more step away from the US’s long-term commitment to liberal trade.
Congress granted the president fast-track authority to strike trade deals in 1974. From time to time, the delegation comes to an end and needs to be renewed. Previous administrations have generally wanted to maintain the arrangement, knowing that striking new deals is difficult without it. Trading partners are wary of granting concessions when they know the White House can’t come to terms and sign off on its own. Trade deals are complex, balancing perceived costs and benefits across a wide range of issues. They’re at great risk of unravelling if Congress is free to rewrite the US position line by line after the fact.
Few would disagree that to be a credible partner in such talks the US needs to grant the president and his advisers power to negotiate unilaterally. The TPA’s critics over the years have understood this and been commendably frank about their reasoning. They don’t want the US to be a credible partner, because they don’t want to promote trade.
The Biden administration has lately been engaged in trade talks with the UK and Kenya. Its lassitude over the TPA shows how much it cares about wrapping up those agreements. More broadly, US relations with friends and allies around the world depend in no small part on trade and commerce. Standing aside while other countries deepen their trade relationships weakens US power and influence. It denies the US a voice in shaping global standards as patterns of trade activity shift and new issues (such as the strengthening of supply chains) arise.
In a recent congressional hearing, US trade representative Katherine Tai deflected questions about the TPA, saying that the administration first needed to rethink the objectives of trade agreements. The objectives don’t need rethinking. For decades, the US has built its strength and global standing on trade and competition. Lowering barriers to trade serves its interests, and everybody else’s. The sooner the administration grasps this, the better.
Bloomberg Opinion. More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion
G-7 set to counter China’s Belt and Road plan with green initiative
Biden and Johnson stress common ground despite Brexit fallout
Joe Biden throws out Trump’s bans on China’s TikTok and WeChat
US and EU aim to end Trump’s tariff fight at summit
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.