Featured Speakers:  

Kathleen Claussen, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Timothy Meyer, Richard Allen/Cravath Distinguished Professor in International Business Law, Duke University School of Law

Moderator: Michael J. Smart, Managing Director, Rock Creek Global Advisors

Speaker Biographies

Professor Kathleen Claussen is a Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center and has served as arbitrator, counsel, expert, public servant, and teacher. Her expertise covers several topics of international law, especially trade, investment, international business and labor; dispute settlement and international dispute bodies; national security and cybersecurity law; and administrative law issues surrounding U.S. foreign relations and transnational agreements.

Her work has appeared in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, the University of Chicago Law Review, and the Virginia Law Review, among others, as well as in leading international law journals. One of her articles on international investment disputes, The International Claims Trade, was awarded the Smit-Lowenfeld Prize in International Arbitration. Professor Claussen is also the co-founder of SAILS: the Consortium for the Study and Analysis of International Law Scholarship. She is the editor (with Geraldo Vidigal) of The Sustainability Revolution in Trade Agreements, forthcoming with Oxford University Press. She also co-edits an open-access textbook on international trade law together with Julian Arato, Joseph Weiler, and Sungjoon Cho. Professor Claussen has also blogged at Lawfare, Just Security, the International Economic Law & Policy Blog, and Opinio Juris, and is regularly featured on or consulted as an expert for various media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, Marketplace, Bloomberg, and the Financial Times.

Professor Claussen has served as an arbitrator, as counsel, or as counsel to the tribunal in more than a dozen international trade and investment cases. She has been named to three arbitration rosters to serve as panel chair or panel member in state-to-state disputes. She is also regularly called upon to testify as an expert before legislative and independent review boards. In 2021-2022, she co-authored a study commissioned by the Administrative Conference of the United States on alternative dispute resolution in federal agency programs.

Professor Claussen has served as a visiting faculty member or invited researcher at numerous institutions around the world, including Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, the University of Cambridge Lauterpacht Centre for International Law where she was a Brandon Fellow, the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, the iCourts Center of Excellence at the University of Copenhagen, the George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies, the University of Zurich and Collegium Helveticum, and the World Trade Institute. Prior to joining the Georgetown faculty in 2023, she was a member of the faculty at the University of Miami School of Law for five years.

Professor Claussen holds several leadership positions within international law and arbitration professional associations. In 2021, she was appointed co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of International Economic Law. Her other recent governance appointments include the American Society of International Law (ASIL) International Economic Law Interest Group, the ASIL Executive Council & Executive Committee, and the Junior International Law Scholars Association. She is also a member of the Academic Council of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration and the Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute settlement.

Before joining the academy, Professor Claussen was Associate General Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in the Executive Office of the President. There, she represented the United States in trade dispute proceedings and served as a legal advisor for the United States in international trade negotiations. She also worked on economic security issues on behalf of USTR at the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force. In 2020-2021, she was an invited member of the Biden-Harris Transition Team, covering trade, commerce, and development agencies.

Earlier in her career, Professor Claussen was Legal Counsel at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague where she advised on disputes between countries, and on investment and commercial arbitrations involving countries and international organizations. She also clerked for the Honorable David F. Hamilton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. At Yale, Professor Claussen served on the board of the Yale Law Journal and was Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Journal of International Law. She was awarded the Jerome Sayles Hess Fund Prize for excellence in international law and the Howard M. Holtzmann Fellowship in international dispute resolution.

Timothy Meyer is Richard Allen/Cravath Distinguished Professor in International Business Law at Duke University School of Law and is an expert in international law—with specialties in international trade, investment and environmental law—and U.S. foreign relations law. He is co-director of Duke Law’s Center for International and Comparative Law. Meyer also serves on the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law and is an elected member of the American Law Institute.

Meyer’s research examines the factors that influence the design, implementation, and evolution of international legal institutions, as well as the role of the constitutional separation of powers in U.S. foreign policymaking. Specific topics include the implementation of public policy exceptions in international trade agreements, the interaction of international and local rules on energy subsidies, the role of local governments in free trade agreements, and the creation of non-binding “soft law” obligations. Professor Meyer’s work has appeared in the Columbia Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the California Law Review, the Journal of Legal Analysis and the American and European Journals of International Law, among others. He is also the author (with Andrew T. Guzman) of GOLDILOCKS GLOBALISM, forthcoming from Oxford University Press, and the editor (with Harlan Grant Cohen) of INTERNATIONAL LAW AS BEHAVIOR, from Cambridge University Press.

Meyer is the author (with Todd N. Tucker) of The Green Steel Deal, a proposal for an international arrangement on decarbonizing the steel sector through a mix of domestic and international trade measures. He has testified before the U.S. Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and the Judiciary and has served both as counsel and as an expert in international arbitrations and in cases raising international and foreign relations law issues in U.S. courts. The European Union has also named Meyer to its list of possible chairpersons for arbitrations and trade and sustainable development disputes arising under its trade agreements.

Prior to joining the Duke Law faculty in 2022, Meyer was a professor of law and director of the International Legal Studies Program at Vanderbilt University Law School. He has also taught at the University of Georgia School of Law. Before entering the academy, he served as an attorney-adviser in the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser and clerked for the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch when Justice Gorsuch served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Meyer earned his B.A. and M.A. (History) from Stanford University and his J.D. and Ph.D. (Jurisprudence and Social Policy) from the University of California, Berkeley.

Michael J. Smart is a Managing Director at Rock Creek Global Advisors, where he focuses on international trade and investment policy, including market access and regulatory matters. He also advises multinational companies on sanctions, supply chain policy, and trade-related climate measures.

Mr. Smart previously served as Trade Counsel on the Democratic staff of the US Senate Committee on Finance. In that role, he advised Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and members of the committee on various trade matters, including World Trade Organization negotiations and dispute settlement, free trade agreements, agricultural trade, and the trade aspects of legislation to address climate change.

Before joining the Finance Committee, Mr. Smart was Director for International Trade and Investment on the staff of the National Security Council at the White House. Mr. Smart focused on the Doha Development Agenda, trade in financial services, free trade agreements, and bilateral investment treaties. He also served as the lead White House staff for cabinet-level dialogues with Brazil and India.

Mr. Smart was previously an associate at the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP, where his practice focused on international trade and investment policy and dispute resolution. He represented companies and governments in WTO, investment treaty, and NAFTA disputes. Earlier in his career, Mr. Smart was Legislative Director for former Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND).

Mr. Smart has appeared on CNN International, BBC News, Bloomberg News, and Channel News Asia and has been quoted in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico, and Financial Times.

Mr. Smart is a member of the Executive Circle of the Institute of International Economic Affairs at The George Washington University and a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington International Trade Association. Mr. Smart received his BA in International Affairs from The George Washington University (Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude) and his JD from Georgetown University Law Center (cum laude).

The post Trade and the Administrative State appeared first on WITA.

On May 12, WITA discussed how carbon border adjustment measures (CBAM) fit in the context of national and multilateral efforts to reduce carbon’s impact on climate change. 

WITA Webinar Featuring:

Dave Banks, Fellow at Bipartisan Policy Center, Senior Fellow at Atlantic Council 

Andrew Shoyer, Partner and Co-Lead, Global Arbitration, Trade and Advocacy,  Sidley 

Madelaine Tuininga, European Commission, DG Trade Head of Unit for Sustainable Development and the European Green Deal

Moderator: Samantha Gross, Director, Energy Security and Climate Initiative, Brookings 

SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES

The post WITA Webinar: How Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms Fit in the Trade (and Environmental) Tool Box appeared first on WITA.

On April 20, 2021, WITA discussed the efforts to increase trade in environmental goods, technologies and services through bilateral, regional and multilateral trade agreements.

PROGRAM AGENDA 

Welcome: 4:00 PM (US/Eastern)

• Kenneth Levinson, Executive Director, WITA

Remarks and Panelist Discussion: 4:05 PM

• Sarah Thorn, Senior Director, Global Government Affairs, Walmart
• Mark Linscott, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council/Senior Advisor, The Asia Group
• Ambassador Vangelis Vitalis, New Zealand Deputy Secretary Trade and Economic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
• Moderator: Maureen Hinman, Co-Founder and Chairman, Silverado Policy Accelerator

Followed by:

• Q & A with Audience – Webinar attendees are encouraged to use the Q&A function on the Zoom app to submit their questions in real time.

OVERVIEW

On Tuesday, Silverado’s co-founder and executive chairman Maureen Hinman joined the Washington International Trade Association (WITA) for its virtual event “Trading For Good,” a panel discussion exploring efforts to increase trade in environmental goods, services, and technologies through bilateral, regional and multilateral trade agreements. The event marked the second installment of WITA’s Trade and the Environment Series, a multipart event series co-sponsored by Silverado Policy Accelerator examining issues at the intersection of international trade and the environment.

Hinman moderated a wide-ranging discussion between three esteemed trade experts: Mark Linscott, the former assistant U.S. Trade Representative for South and Central Asian Affairs and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council; Sarah Thorn, senior director of global government affairs for Walmart; and Ambassador Vangelis Vitalis, New Zealand’s deputy secretary for trade and economics at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The event attracted a broad audience, including current and former government officials, academics, industry representatives, foreign envoys, and non-governmental stakeholders.

The panelists focused in particular on potential paths toward a new agreement to expand market access for environmental goods following the collapse of plurilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2016.

Ambassador Vitalis argued that the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), which accounts for 60 percent of total global GDP, can play a vital role in laying the groundwork for a future agreement by building off the 2011 APEC 54 list. Vitalis said that New Zealand, APEC’s host nation this year, is hoping to begin building broad support for an expanded list of environmental goods, an issue that proved a fatal sticking point in the WTO negotiations.

“Given that APEC is both consensus-based and voluntary, we think that it’s an opportunity to develop a longer and more ambitious list, and then we hope that APEC economies will want to take that to Geneva as a contribution to the process there, and also for [other nations] to think of it as a reference point,” he said. “In the APEC context, it’s very much a ‘define-by-doing’ [mentality] … We’ve very conscious of how long it takes to negotiate [a list], so we’re very anxious to avoid a protracted process.”

Linscott raised the possibility that future negotiations could move forward without China at the table — an option which was seen among trade experts as unlikely in the past, but which has gained some traction following the collapse of the 2016 negotiations, largely as a result of China actions.

“The question is, should China be at the table?” said Linscott. “Certainly there’s a free-rider problem if China is out, but given [past] experience, with China in, do we ever get to an agreement?”

Linscott also argued that an interim agreement on environmental goods could potentially provide a stepping-stone toward a broader agreement — an option that Hinman proposed in a recent op-ed for WITA — but noted that such an approach could run afoul of WTO principles.

“I think [an interim agreement] prompts a necessary discussion in the tariff world about the implications of [the most favored nation principle],” he said. “There’s this knee-jerk reaction that we have to protect that principle, but when there are concerns about free-riders — and one in particular — it should prompt healthy debate on the approach going forward.”

On the business side, Thorn presented Walmart’s case for a new environmental goods agreement, arguing that companies like Walmart would benefit from a trade agreement that lowered the costs of the green technologies that large companies need to meet their own environmental goals. Thorn also argued that there is broad-based support for a new agreement in the business community, noting that companies like Walmart have recognized that expanding access to green goods and services is not only the ethical path forward, but is also good for business.

“For us, this is about supply chain resilience and supply chain sustainability,” said Thorn. “We can’t just exhaust people and planet. We have to be thinking about how we’re going to renew if we’re going to be around in another, twenty, fifty, one hundred years.”

All participants said they were encouraged by U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s recent comments on trade and the environment, in which she made a strong case for using trade policy to advance climate objectives but stopped short of delineating specific trade measures the United States supports.

“Traditionally, in order to get things done on trade and the environment, we’ve needed U.S. leadership,” said Ambassador Vitalis. “It’s all well and good for the keen, goody-two-shoes countries like [New Zealand] to say, ‘We need to get something done on trade and the environment’ … but we really do need U.S. leadership, U.S. engagement, and the U.S. leaning in to really drive this agenda forward.”

Linscott said he is optimistic that the Biden administration will push for renewed environmental goods negotiations.

“During the Obama administration, [officials] were following very closely the negotiations on environmental goods, and they were big cheerleaders for efforts to get a trade agreement that would have some benefits for the diffusion of environmental technologies,” he said. “Some of those people are still around and are working for [United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate] John Kerry, so I can imagine there being some degree of excitement for those who do climate negotiations with respect to a new initiative among trade negotiators on EGA — and that’s how it should be.”

Across the board, participants agreed that renewed negotiations would mark a major step forward in the global effort to combat climate change — although it remains too early to tell whether they will take place in APEC, the WTO, a bilateral or regional forum, or in all of the above.

“Let’s not pretend that trade is going to be the silver bullet to solve climate change, but trade can make a contribution,” said Vitalis. “I think that’s a very powerful message to our societies: trade is actually part of the solution here, not part of the problem.”

To view the original overview on the Silverado Policy Accelerator website, please click here.

The post WITA’s Trade & Environment Series: Trading for Good appeared first on WITA.

On January 7, 2021, WITA held an event looking at the Trump Administration’s investigation of Vietnam under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.

The 301 investigation  was intended to determine whether Vietnam has undervalued its currency in order to make its products unfairly cheap abroad, and to probe the country’s importation and use of timber that may have been illegally harvested and traded. On December 16, the U.S. Department of the Treasury formally labeled Vietnam a currency manipulator, accusing it of improperly intervening in foreign exchange markets to advantage its own exports.

The post U.S. – Vietnam Trade and Section 301 appeared first on WITA.

The event began with remarks from Andrew Gelfuso, Vice President of Trade Center Management Associates and Kenneth I. Levinson, Executive Director of WITA. We were fortunate enough to hear Roberto Azevêdo, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, as he discussed the dissolution of the appellate body and his thoughts on global dispute settlements going forward. This was followed by an armchair discussion with Ambassador Rufus Yerxa, president of the National Foreign Trade Council.

The U.S. China panel was primarily focused around how China had changed its own image within the last 20 years and the radical shifts it has made from being relatively closed off to countries who were not direct allies to joining the WTO in 2001. From joining the WTO to now, China has significantly increased its dominance in global trade, economic, and financial markets and has now become a credible threat to U.S. hegemony due to large economic pressure.

Since the Trump administration’s Phase One deal, China has become more cautious as to its approach to its relationship with the United States and there were voiced concerns from all panelists as to China’s willingness to follow through with their end of the agreement let alone get to a Phase Two before the end of the coming general election cycle. The panelists were Wendy Cutler, Vice President of the Asia Society Policy Institute, Professor Ann Lee, author of  “What the US Can Learn from China” and “Will China’s Economy Collapse?”, Ambassador Kurt Tong, Partner at The Asia Group, Clete Willems, Partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Douglas M. Bell, Global Trade Policy Leader at Ernst & Young.

The NextGenTrade panel was centered around the evolution of trade due to advanced technologies such as AI, blockchain, 3D printing, as well as financial technology developments. While 3D trade was not as disruptive of an invention as was expected with regards to its ability to rapidly manufacture and place highly developed countries over developing ones, the ability of AI to do that was discussed in depth. Another issue that was brought up was blokchain’s ability to carry out anonymous, financial transactions that could skew U.S. financial markets with disruptive, malicious financial technologies from China, Russia, and Iran.

While illegal and purposefully harmful technologies were discussed, there could also be a market for legal and productive digital trade surrounding financial tools bolstered by AI and insured in its ability to be untampered with by blockchain based networks. Which type of digital trade economy develops over the next few years is dependent on which country holds dominance in both financial and economic markets. The panelists were Susan Lund the Director of Research at the McKinsey Global Institute, Julia Nielson the Head of the Development Division at the Trade & Agriculture Directorate, OECD, Paul Triolo the Practice Head of Geo-Technology at the Eurasia Group, and Jake Colvin, Executive Director of the Global Innovation Forum.

The next morning panel was the press roundtable, “Meet the [Trade] Press.” With trade on the forefront of many news outlets, this year was particularly interesting to hear from members of the press. From senior experts to junior correspondents, Ambassador Susan C. Schwab of Mayer Brown LLP moderated a discussion between prominent reporters on current trade topics and trends. Not only were the discussants able to share their experiences with the press, but they also gave their personal insight and predictions for how key trade issues will progress and be resolved. The featured panelists were Jenny Leonard, a junior reporter at Bloomberg News, David Lynch, the Global Economics Correspondent at the Washington Post, James Politi, the World Trade Editor of the Financial Times, and Ana Swanson, a Trade and Economics Correspondent at the New York Times.

Rich Thau, President and Co-Founder of Engagious, started our afternoon sessions with a presentation on his research, “The Swing Voter Project,” which analyzes the thinking and opinions of swing voters of the past two presidential elections. In addition to discussing trends and the demographics of the voters interviewed, he also touched on the issues they found to be most important and most decisive for the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election. He found that in regard to trade policy, it was not necessarily the concept of open trade that these voters were wary about, but more so immigration policy that might accompany it. This was followed by a conversation with Kimberly Ellis, Principal at the Monument Policy Group. They discussed the implications of his research, as well as his predictions for the upcoming election cycle.

Next on the afternoon agenda was, “A Fireside Chat: ‘Tarrified’ of Trade Talks?” Hosts of the Trade Talks podcast Chad Bown, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics and Soumaya Keynes, the Trade and Globalization Editor for the Economist gave commentary on the troubles of the appellate body of the World Trade Organization. Using a more historical lens, Bown and Keynes analyzed policy of the WTO and gave insight as to what could be done to restore a balanced dispute settlement system in trade.

Ambassador Robert Zoellick gave his remarks in the next session. Zoellick discussed both his pessimism towards the Trump Administration’s global trade plans as well as the degradation of U.S. relations to a multilateral system. Ambassador Zoellick also spoke on the strategic harnessing of all types of trading systems, specifically that the best and most strategically competent trade policy measures would be the ones that can harness regional, bilateral, and multilateral trade networks together instead of dogmatically chasing one. He also advised business owners to innovate supply chains that are more rigid and flexible to the coming era of trade uncertainty. His remarks were followed by a conversation with Ambassador Rufus Yerxa, president of the National Foreign Trade Council.

The concluding panel, “Trade Around the World,” featured a conversation between foreign ambassadors to the United States on both the conflict surrounding the dispute settlement process of the WTO as well as their take on relations between their countries and the U.S. From discussing the need to establish a rules-based system in trade relations to their countries’ stakes in the global market and foreign direct investment from and into the United States, the panelists gave interesting insight as to the climate of trade policy in years to come. Moderated by Laura Lane, President of Global Public Affairs at UPS, the featured panelists were H.E. Ashok Kumar Mirpuri, Ambassador of Singapore, H.E. Stavros Labrinidis, Ambassador of the European Union, H.E. Rosemary Banks, Ambassador of New Zealand, and H.E. Fitsum Arega, Ambassador of Ethiopia.

The post 2020 Washington International Trade Conference Recap appeared first on WITA.

If the WTO’s Appellate Body will ceases to function after December, 2019, what are the implications for the functioning of the WTO and its ability to enforce existing agreements and to negotiate new rules and market access agreements?

On November 21st, WITA held an event where an expert panel looked at the crisis with the Dispute Settlement Understanding and the Appellate Body, and discussed where the World Trade Organization should go from here.

Featuring

• Stacy J. Ettinger, Partner, K&L Gates LLP
• Marvin Hildebrand, Minister (Economic), Embassy of Canada
• Jennifer Hillman, Senior Fellow for Trade & International Political Economy,Council on Foreign Relations
• Bruce Hirsh, Principal, Tailwind Global Strategies LLC & Of Counsel to Capitol Counsel LLC
• Terry Stewart, formerly, Managing Partner, Law

Also, listen to Bruce Hirsh do a deep dive on the Crisis at the WTO in his guest appearance on the Yeutter Institute podcast!

And don’t miss WITA’s own Crisis at the WTO Spotify Playlist!

The post The Crisis at the WTO: Where Do We Go From Here? 11/21/19 appeared first on WITA.

At an event on October 30, 2019, WITA held an event to discuss how the US government is implementing new laws on foreign investment and export controls on emerging and foundational technologies, as well as the Trump Administration’s Executive Order on Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain.

The post CFIUS, Export Controls, and the ICT Supply Chain Executive Order 10/30/19 appeared first on WITA.

Ambassador Robert Holleyman, Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP, President & CEO, C&M International LLC

Joshua P. Meltzer, Senior Fellow, Global Economy & Development, Brookings

Steve Stewart, Director, Trade & Market Access, IBM, Government and Regulatory Affairs

Joseph Whitlock, Director, Policy, BSA | The Software Alliance

The post NextGenTrade® Presents: What is the Future for Digital Trade Policy? appeared first on WITA.

Closing Plenary – Trade and American Values

By: James Dail

On January 29^th, 2019 the Washington International Trade Association held a panel discussion entitled “Closing Plenary – Trade and American Values” as a part of the inaugural Washington International Trade Conference. The panel sought to examine trade policy through the lens of America’s founding values, with the goal of determining whether our current trade regime has succeeded in living up to those values. Featured panelists included Thea Lee, the President of the Economic Policy Institute, Walter Russell Mead, a Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at the Hudson Institute, and Michael Anton, a Lecturer in Politics and a Distinguished Fellow at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in Washington. Grant Aldonas, the Executive Director of the Institute of International Economic Law at Georgetown University, moderated the panel.

Aldonas opened the discussion by explaining why the values of liberty and equality specifically are central to America’s founding. His objective was for the panelists to determine if there is an existing moral framework in how the United States trades with the rest of the world, and if yes, to explore its success at living up to the values of liberty and equality. He continued on to mention the profound opportunity the country has to reform our trading system to live up to these values at the present moment, when discussions around trade policy are at the forefront of the nation’s political discourse. Aldonas concluded his opening remarks by stating that each panelist will have the opportunity to give an introductory exposition on the topic.

Thea Lee was the first panelist to speak, beginning her comments by noting that, while she was a critic of current United States trade policy, she was not opposed to either trade in concept or the entrance of the United States into the global economy. She went on to say that it is crucial that we discover what the correct set of trade policies are for the United States. She proposed three questions that we can ask ourselves in order to find the answer. First, what are we trying to accomplish with trade? Second, how do we measure our success? Third, how do we express our values to the world and achieve our goals through a combination of trade policy and domestic policy?

Thea’s next point was that we have a tendency to start the conversation around trade policy in the wrong place, with a goal in mind of eliminating the barriers to trade. Instead, we should view trade policy as a tool to accomplish our goals around the world. These goals could include everything from providing both domestic and foreign workers with good jobs, creating safe consumer goods, cleaning up the environment, or fostering good relations with other countries. We need to find a way to engage with the global economy in a way that will foster these values, as well as democratic decision-making in other countries. Through the trade rules we set, the United States communicates the issues it cares about to the rest of the world. At present, too much of what is written in our trade rules expresses our love for corporate profits, and not enough has been written to express our desire for good jobs and workers’ rights. One example of this is that, when China joined the World Trade Organization, there was nothing in the thousands of pages of accession documents about human rights or workers’ protections. This is at least partly because the United States is refraining from applying the pressure needed to make them into international rules for trade.

After Thea Lee concluded her comments, Grant Aldonas connected what she had said with his opening remarks, stating that our trade policy should not necessarily be focused on the values of freedom and equality, but on the means by which we can achieve those values.

Walter Russell Mead was the next to speak, citing a number of statistics indicating that humanity’s condition is improving around the world, such as that infant mortality has fallen in half since 1990. Mead argued that the economic growth stimulated by international trade liberalization has been the key driver to these improvements in developing countries. Due to this, it is difficult to argue that the architects of our current international trading order were wrong about everything. However, there is no question that the results have been mixed for developed countries. The political situation in both America and Europe clearly indicates that many are not satisfied with the status quo. It is essential that we examine all aspects of the current trading regime to determine both what is working, as well as how we can fix what is not working. For both Republicans and Democrats, this will require some difficult conversations. In both parties, there is a desire to return to the past in some fashion. The Republicans propose an economic system with low taxation and low regulation as its defining features. The Democrats want a return to an economy where everyone has access to a stable job for life and the distribution of wealth is far more equitable.

Yet a return to the past in either form might be difficult, as an economic and a social revolution have created cultural upheaval. Mead used the industrial revolution as an example to illustrate how the United States survived cultural upheaval in the past. When we changed from being a country full yeoman farmers to a country of city-based manufacturers, the economic situation of all facets of society improved in the long-run, but the transition period was tumultuous. In comparison to the present day, this experience suggests that there is hope in the future, but the United States will need to learn to navigate the dangers of the present. Mead also spoke about how, for the past several decades, the United States has been crafting policy around economic theory with the expectation that it will be easily understood by the general public. He emphasized that, while economic theory is essential in crafting good trade policy, trade policy and economic theory are fundamentally different things. This revolt against the status quo in the United States is the revenge of the real world against policies that only took theory into account.

           After Mead concluded his opening remarks, Grant Aldonas connected them with what Thea Lee said. He stated that Mead implied that when government officials craft trade policy, it is essential that they secure the support of the general public. United States trade policy needs to take into account our traditional democratic values as well as the opinion of the general public. These go hand in hand. In the Midwest especially, the collective attitude towards trade policy has every bit as much to do with their individual identities as Americans as it does with the price of automobiles.

Mead interjected here, adding to Aldonas’s comments regarding American identity by stating that this extends beyond trade policy. Everyone would like to return to the quality jobs of the 1960s. They had stability, the promise of a nice pension, and the feeling that one was contributing to society. However, no one wants to return to the products produced in the 1960s. Thea Lee objected to this statement, saying that she didn’t believe this was a mutually exclusive choice. Good jobs for workers coupled with well-made products is an attainable goal for the United States. Walter Mead clarified his comments, saying that his point was that we should not be trying to return to utopia. Instead, we should be finding ways to meet human needs in the present.

After this, the discussion turned to the opening comments of Michael Anton. Anton is a student of the Founding Fathers, and he wanted to give what he deemed “the founding approach” to American trade policy. At the same time, he made the admission that times change and it is impossible to take the founding approach in all aspects of trade policy. Anton began his founding approach by stating that Hamilton won his great debate with Jefferson over the economic character of the new nation. We became a nation of manufacturing and industry, not of agrarian farming. Anton pointed out that Hamilton’s protectionist beliefs were initially essential to his manufacturing vision. Hamilton argued that tariffs were necessary to expand the United States’ infant manufacturing sector so that it could compete with the well-established European manufacturers. This initial economic debate between Hamilton and Jefferson was the precursor to a centuries long debate between America’s political parties. Historically, the Republicans have supported protectionism and the Democrats have supported free-trade. The parties switched identities on this issue during the last two decades of the 20^th century. What we are seeing today is a reversion to the norm. After this, Michael explained the fueling force behind this reversion. He stated that the manufacturing towns that were adversely affected by factory closings were not heard by the political elites when they voiced their objections. In these towns, it was always possible to get a job at the local factory and still have a relatively good life. Suddenly, that was no longer a possibility for these people. They responded to this by casting their blame on the political elites who argued that the trade deals accelerating these factory closings was economically efficient. Anton then used this point to criticize political elites, saying that an elite’s job is to make sure that every segment of the economy is healthy, not just the aggregate whole. There is something gravely wrong if two coasts of the country are living in intellectual silos and are oblivious to the pent-up anger of Americans in the rest of the country. The President is responding to this anger and desires that the nation’s trading agreements address the concerns of those who elected him.

After Anton concluded his comments, Aldonas gave commentary about Anton’s thoughts on manufacturing decline. Aldonas said that he grew up in South Minneapolis, where the majority of his high school classmates became auto mechanics. In many ways, his classmates have achieved the American dream. They all have a home on a lake, and their kids have all gone to college. However, Aldonas disputed the idea that a sense of identity had been lost through the decline of these sorts of jobs. Instead, he asserted that they had very little identity rooted in their work in the first place. They never had the feeling that their work was meaningful, and therefore, they never had the feeling of participating in the country in a meaningful way.

After Grant Aldonas finished, Thea Lee took the conversation in a different direction, returning to Anton’s comments. She disagreed with his point that the President is actively working to resolve the anger of his constituents. Rather, she argued that the President has succeeded in tapping into this anger, but he has failed to formulate any effective policy response. She responded more positively to another point of his believing that the depleted manufacturing towns demonstrate that workers, both in the United States and around the world, are hurt when corporate interests are prioritized in trade negotiations.

Michael Anton responded by asserting that, to the Founding Fathers, the well-being of workers in other countries would be a secondary or tertiary consideration compared to the well-being of the United States and its citizens.

Aldonas jumped into the conversation with his own point, saying that it feels as if we have migrated away from both caring for the well-being of our workers and for exporting our democratic norms when we negotiate trade agreements. A return to these root values might lead us out of this conflict.

Walter Mead was the next to speak, agreeing with Aldonas’s earlier point that it is critical for all aspects of American society to feel as if they are connected to the country through their work and be represented by their government. He also pointed out that this connection has declined through population growth. He argued that, though women and minorities were denied suffrage, the early republic was more responsive to individual citizens, considering that it had a population of 3 million compared to 330 million today. A common way people overcome this lack of individuality is to adopt a group mentality. However, when people place their allegiances to their social groups above their allegiances to their country, nasty conflicts can be the result.

Thea Lee spoke up next, arguing with Michael Anton that it is actually in our self-interest as a country to advocate for democracy and worker’s rights in our trading partners. To emphasize this, she used the example that it is not inherently altruistic to advocate for reduced carbon emissions from other countries. It is actually in our self-interest because that will help mitigate the effects of climate change.

Anton responded by clarifying his point, saying that the Founding Fathers would certainly care about the well-being of our trading partners’ citizens, but that they would not prioritize it above the well-being of the American people. He also gave another comment on the United States’ political elite, saying that regardless of whether or not one fully believes in this administration’s ability to negotiate with other nations, the overwhelmingly negative response to any alteration in our current trade regime from the elite corners of society has made it difficult for this administration to produce an effective policy response. Anton concluded the panel by mentioning that during the Cold War, there was a divergence between diplomatic and economic interests when it came to trade deals. Economists might have argued that a particular trade agreement might not benefit the United States economically, but diplomats might have argued that it was in the national interest to stabilize another country’s economy so that it would not succumb to Communism.

Featuring:

Grant Aldonas, Executive Director, Institute of International Economic Law at the Georgetown University Law Center

Michael Anton, Lecturer in Politics and Research Fellow, Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center

Thea Lee, President, Economic Policy Institute

Walter Russell Mead, Ravenel B. Curry III Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship, Hudson Institute

To view more details about the event, visit the event page here.

The post WITC: Closing Plenary — Trade and American Values appeared first on WITA.

To view Bruce Stokes’ presentation slides on American views on Trade in Year Three of the Trump Administration, please click here

Featuring:

Kimberly Ellis, Partner, Monument Advocacy

J.D. Grom, Executive Director, New Democrat Coalition

Robert Moran, Partner, Brunswick Insight

Bruce Stokes, Director of Global Economic Attitudes, Pew Research Center

To view more details about the event, visit the event page here.

The post WITC: Trade Politics in the Age of Trump appeared first on WITA.