March together, trade together

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris agree on little, except a disdain for free trade. Ahead of the 2024 US presidential election, Trump has threatened a 10% across-the-board tariff on imports, while Harris, whose policy positions remain murky, has indicated that she would follow in President Joe Biden’s footsteps with “targeted and strategic tariffs.” American politicians’ free-trade enthusiasm of the 1980s and 1990s has vanished, and this scares other countries, which know that the US – despite its wobbles and foibles – remains the world’s most attractive trading partner.
Of course, free-trade economists should try to buck the anti-trade wave with facts. But, given the widespread antipathy to globalisation, there is a more urgent question at hand: What principle should guide policy?
Countries whose armies march and drill together should trade together, too. Rather than slam the border shut haphazardly, the US must be able to distinguish good from bad actors on the world stage.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, trade as a share of US GDP has shrunk by about 10%. The blunt truth is that America, with its enormous internal market of 335mn people, can weather trade wars and skirmishes better than most other countries. Over the last 15 years, US GDP has outpaced that of every G7 country, leaving even Chinese officials wondering where they have gone wrong.
The anti-globalisation narrative seems to treat all foreigners alike, imagining that they are all trying to steal jobs, swipe intellectual property, and take advantage of loopholes. As a result, American trade warriors can get just as worked up over butter and maple syrup from Canada as bomb components from North Korea. But the US should be more open to trade with countries with which it maintains close military-to-military co-operation; it conducts dozens of joint training manoeuvres with the Canadian armed forces and, of course, none with North Korea. Alongside Canada, countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany should be at the top of the list.
When Biden took office, most pundits assumed that he would do the opposite of what his predecessor had done, including reversing the policies of Trump’s US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer. Instead, Biden embraced Trump’s trade restrictions but with a disregard for national security.
The Biden administration’s border policy has increased antipathy toward trade. After all, many Americans figure, if the federal government did not notice nearly 1mn “got-away” (yes, that’s the official term) migrants crossing the Southern border in 2023, how can it be trusted with 20mn uninspected containers of corrugated steel arriving on ships from who-knows-where?
Global trade increases national wealth, so perhaps Americans do not want certain countries to grow richer. Given that trade success can inflame as much as enrichen, a wealthier China may not be in the interest of the US at this time. China’s threats to Taiwan, construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea, confrontations with Japan, and overt pledges to dominate the world economy harken back to Nikita Khrushchev’s alleged warning, “We will bury you.”
Whoever wins the White House in November must create a stronger link between national and economic security.
No one needs to be convinced that the world has grown more dangerous. On any given night, newscasts can show missiles launching from Lebanon, Crimea, or North Korea. But it is even more dangerous if US economic policy does not differentiate between enemy fire and friendly competition. Americans should trade with those who march in step with us on battlefields – and in defence of democracy. – Project Syndicate