American trade position: Do as we say, not as we do

It is hardly shocking that the Americans are heading onto the next round of world trade talks as hypocrites.

Who isn’t?

Listen to the talk of the highly protectionist Europeans and it sounds like a clarion call for trade liberalization. Hardly.

Dissect Canada’s “balanced position” and it is a masterful mix of wanting trade liberalization for those sectors that want to export and demanding protection for those sectors that prefer to service the domestic market free of cheaper import competition.

In the dictionary beside the word “hypocrisy” there should be a description of national trade positions.

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

But America’s trade hypocrisy has a special significance for Canada.

Heading into the next pivotal round of world trade talks, a growing mood within Canadian government and political classes suggests that Canada should hitch its trade cart to the American trade liberalization horse.

Last time, Canada tried to be a middle country, supporting elements of both sides. This time, is the middle compromise position irrelevant? Is America Canada’s natural ally?

The two countries are, after all, united in a view that world trade should be liberalized. We have common cause in fighting the European protectionists.

And in the interests of solidarity with our largest trading partner, some Canadian politicians – Reform MPs and Senate agriculture committee chair Len Gustafson among them- are suggesting Canada prove its free trade credentials by discussing compromise on Canadian policies the Americans oppose, such as supply- management tariffs and Canadian Wheat Board powers.

After all, the Europeans are the trade enemies and the Americas are our greatest market and friends.

Last week, when members of the House of Commons agriculture committee traveled to Washington for four days of talking and listening, they heard a more nuanced version of American trade goals.

They heard the usual U.S. free trade dreams – they will go into the next trade round promoting an end to export subsidies and a reduction in trade or production-distorting domestic subsidies and lower trade barriers.

But they also saw a protectionist instinct.

The highly protected sugar and peanut sectors will not be exposed to competition.

Export subsidies should be eliminated, but the U.S. will act only when everyone else does. And by the way, concessional aid trade is not an export subsidy.

And domestic support? Well, last year in the midst of an election when some farmers were hurting, the government threw $6 billion (U.S.) at American farmers whether they needed it or not.

Don’t talk to us about trade or production implications of support, for God’s sake. Our voters need help!

It may be that Canadian negotiators can make the most trade liberalization gains in Geneva by tagging along with American free trade arguments.

It would be a mistake to imagine the Americans believe them, except when our vulnerable sectors are exposed and their sensitive sectors are not at risk.