World

10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

'Buy American' bill risks trade war and drift to protectionism

Politicians demand that funds from $1trn package go to US suppliers only

By Leonard Doyle in Washington

Barack Obama supported a “Buy American” campaign while running for the White House and even distributed campaign buttons and flyers with a special emblem declaring his support.

But now, as the US Senate moves today to vote on a proposed $1 trillion economic stimulus law backed by the President, there is rising concern the protectionist Buy American provisions in the bill could trigger a disastrous transatlantic trade war.

The American trade unions which enthusiastically backed Mr Obama’s economic platform on the campaign trail are demanding payback in the form of protectionist provisions that will ensure the largest government spending programme in history is focused almost exclusively on US manufacturers.

Democrats in the Senate have responded to public pressure to safeguard American jobsby stuffing the package with even more Buy American regulations than members of the House of Representatives had sought. The Senate is demandingthat federal moneyfor federal projects is only spent on goods and services made by US producers.

The Vice-President, Joe Biden, added to international concerns when he said: “I don’t view [the Buy American provisions] as some of the pure free-traders view it, as a harbinger of protectionism.” Last week the House of Representatives version of the bill stirred alarm in the EU and Canada by demanding that all iron and steel bought to rebuild the country’s crumbling infrastructure has to be American made.

Anxious lobbying by the EU has fallen on deaf ears as explicitly protectionist language was added to the Senate bill leaving it open to legal challenge under the rules of the World Trade Organisation.

The House of Representatives passed the bill last Wednesday without Republican support, and the Senate version must pass before Mr Obama signs it into law.

With the economy deteriorating by the day, Mr Obama finds himself torn between popular anger on Main Street, and promises made to the G20 that he will avoid a descent into protectionism. But with growing opposition to the stimulus package from Republicans, who want tax cuts rather than government job creation by spending on infrastructure, politicians from both sides are rallying around the popular Buy American measures.

Byron Dorgan, a Democratic Senate leader from North Dakota, said it was “absurd for somebody to suggest we’re protectionist”.

“You mean like the French wanting to make sure that their stimulus promotes jobs in France?” he asked, “Well, that’s what the French are doing.”

Big multinational corporations, including Caterpillar and General Electric which depend on foreign manufacturing plants, have launched a rearguard attempt to remove the Buy American provisions from the bill. The Emergency Committee for American Trade, another lobby group, is sending out shrill alarms that the stimulus bill could trigger a trade war that would ultimately damage American interests.

“Protectionism is the crackcocaine of economics. It may provide a high. It’s addictive and it leads to economic death,” said Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal.

Europe and Canada have also sent shots across America’s bows. Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who is about to welcome Mr Obama on his first foreign trip as President, said the bill “goes against the spirit of free trade and the US shouldn’t forget its “international obligations to liberalise global commerce”.

The European Union warned that it will not “stand idly by” if the ban on steel remains in place

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

protectionism
[info]bampers wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 12:35 am (UTC)
America is in a no win situation. If we carry on as before and buy globally thus running up huge deficits then we are critised for that. If however we buy locally thus making America strong again financially we are crtised for doing that. We are probably Europes biggest customer and certainly Asias but at the expense of huge unemployment here and a huge deficit tp boot. Maske your minds up you cannot have it both ways.
Re: protectionism
[info]oldskald wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 07:26 am (UTC)
I agree - it ain't fair. But writing protectionist provisions into a bill, or leaving it out but doing it anyway...? Surely it would be much smarter to do it without telling anyone.
Re: protectionism
[info]robertclondon wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 08:35 am (UTC)
Better a no win situation than a lose, lose situation, which is what protectionism would bring.
Bad for Britain
[info]nullius123 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 01:28 am (UTC)
If there is any tit-for-tat between the US and Europe on tariffs and trade barriers, the UK will inevitably be hit harder than many countries - even Mr Brown says so - because our economy is more "outward-facing" than most.

What this means is that we are more foreign-owned than other rich countries, and with the UK economy forecast to shrink faster and further than all the other G7 countries, those foreigners are presumably keen to sell...

With half our kids still leaving school every year with no qualifications - many of them functionally illiterate - the future is not exactly rosy.
US money
[info]walt_kowalski wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 03:48 am (UTC)
protectionism: Economics. the theory, practice, or system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations.

This has nothing to do with raised tariffs or protectionism. This is the US government deciding to spend US government money on US products. The purpose is to stimulate the US economy, not to block foreign products from the US marketplace.
Re: US money
[info]robertclondon wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 08:38 am (UTC)
"The US government deciding to spend US government money on US products" = protectionism. That's just how it is. And it cuts both ways. If we retaliate by blocking your exports then you will lose too. I don't understand why you Americans can't see it.
Re: US money
[info]monster910 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:45 pm (UTC)
Would you care to comment on EU countries directing tax money to EU companies?

Why are all the state owned airlines dominated by Airbus? Why does the EU harrass American companies in court (Microsoft, Coke, Apple, etc)?

You can't have it both ways - Protectionism for EU and Asia while the US takes it on the chin.

Good luck in the upcoming trade wars. The countries with the biggest surpluses will cave before the US.
The US can never be trusted
[info]findempire wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 08:40 am (UTC)
America never fails to renege on its solemn pledges and loudly proclaimed principles for which - so it would have us believe - it so often went to war. While claiming to defend the "free world" from "communist dictatorship," it toppled democratically scores of elected leaders and replaced them with bloody corrupt dictators (Saddam not the least of them). After lambasting the governments it didn't like - especially ones with large oil reserves - for alleged human rights abuses, it set up a global network of torture prisons. After haranguing the world for decades about the evils of socialism, it nationalized its banking sector without batting an eyelid. After having shoved corporate fiat down the throats of third-world nations via the WTO, eroding their national sovereignty and destroying their local economy in the name of free trade, it now goes protectionist.
Why is limited protectionism bad?
[info]andygb wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
I am certainly not going to criticise the US, and its plans to help and support US workers and industry, we should be doing the same in Britain. It is decades of destroying British industry, killing off the car industry, steel, coal mines, lack of investment in new technology and "green" energy, which has made us so vulnerable to the global downturn. We only have the financial sector to stabilise our economy, the very thing which is imploding before our very eyes. We should invest in sustainable industry utilising our home work force, we have to start producing goods once again, and we have to make our agriculture more productive, by helping them to be competitive.
Protectionism is only bad for the rich elite and the politicians who protect them, because it protects the home work force, cutting the massive profits of people who constantly outsource, by using slave labour from third World countries.
Buy American?
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 10:22 am (UTC)
Anyone who has bought American, never does so a second time. America is all quantity and no quality, not that they'd know the difference.
Not working
[info]claudiapas wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 11:06 am (UTC)
This whole mess shows this economic logic simply does not work. When is people going to see that what they have defended as something 'you must do' was not good for them and will not be good to you anyway.
Don't buy American
[info]richardjeff wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 02:48 pm (UTC)
Dead simple solution here. Let the rest of the world insert a "Don't buy American" clause into all bills and contracts.
Tough luck, Limeys!
[info]theedrich wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 02:29 am (UTC)
My, my. So you Brits think that after having dragged us into two utterly senseless World Wars, we should save you from the economic consequences of the morass of multiracialism and White genosuicidism you have pushed Western civilization into. I suggest you think again. The U.K. is smaller than the U.S. State of Oregon but has about eighteen times the population density. You should have understood that the discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus was a one-time windfall and acted accordingly. Instead you not only destroyed Germany but invited the entire overpopulating Third World onto your little mudland. That Columbian windfall is now exhausted, which is the REAL reason the world economy is now dying. As for the so-called "special relationship" with us: forget it. We are going to look after ourselves. It is time for you to stew in your own juice.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date