Opportunity 08: Independent Ideas for America's Next President

Chapter 6: Tackling Trade and Climate Change: Leadership on the Home Front of Foreign Policy

SUMMARY For the next president, effective leadership abroad will depend largely on marshalling bipartisan support for foreign policy at home. Combating terrorism; constricting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; reducing global poverty; promoting an efficient, equitable world trading system; and reversing the process of climate change are all issues that require far more effective diplomacy and skillful management of U.S. domestic politics. Without support from Congress, the best agreements negotiated with other governments will do neither the United States nor the world any good; and without bipartisanship, sustained domestic support is impossible. Trade and climate change provide the best case studies of how to improve coordination between the conduct of foreign policy and constituency building on the home front. In addition to being long-term, complex , high-stakes issues, trade and climate change best represent the nexus between international and domestic politics. After hard slogging with foreign governments, agreements have run into stiff opposition on Capitol Hill—mostly from Democrats in the case of trade and, with climate change, from the Republican side of the aisle. These two issues are also linked, both as problems and as potential areas for solution. 63 Tackling Trade and Climate Change Leadership on the Home Front of Foreign Policy WILLIAM ANTHOLIS AND STROBE TALBOTT 6 In grappling with both issues, the next president will more likely succeed with an approach that —lays the ground domestically for diplomatic initiatives, by mustering public and congressional backing, rather than waiting for negotiators to bring home a signed treaty; —seeks breakthroughs on trade and climate change that complement each another, thereby creating crosscutting coalitions to support both efforts; —pays more attention to developing nations early in the process, since their influence over the outcome—for good or ill—is increasing; —uses U.S. leadership to improve the effectiveness of the international institutions responsible for dealing with these challenges. CONTEXT Majorities in many nations around the world—including the United States—support maintaining an open world trading system and getting a handle on the problem of global warming.1 Even if nations agree broadly on the goals, however, world leaders have not succeeded in addressing these challenges. Global negotiations have faltered for good reason: political leaders have different economic and geopolitical interests, as well as differences in how they judge the preferences and tolerances of their own publics. Quite prominently, on the issues of trade and climate change, the United States has so far been unable to forge the domestic consensus on which its international leadership depends. TRADE POLICY Establishment of a rules-based trading system has been the linchpin of economic integration since the end of World War II, first under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 and then strengthened by the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. World trade contributes about $1 trillion a year to our economy and is responsible for more than 12 million American jobs.2 Most evidence shows that vigorous international trade reduces consumer prices, widens consumer choice, and increases productivity and growth. Successfully reducing trade barriers, through the WTO’s current Doha Development Round negotiations, could help lift as many as 400 million people out of poverty worldwide in the next decade.3 64 WILLIAM ANTHOLIS AND STROBE TALBOTT Vigorous commerce among nations also contributes to international security. That was not the case before World War I. Despite increased trade, economic powers shared virtually no mechanisms for settling disputes or negotiating agreements. The two global conflagrations of the twentieth century were preceded by tariff wars.4 The international community learned a lesson from the disasters that ensued: since World War II, GATT/WTO has lowered trade barriers and provided a process for settlements of disputes to keep the system in balance. However, over the past two decades, the wind has gone out of the sails of global trade liberalization. Negotiators at trade talks no longer just cut tariffs and quotas. They also try to cut back on regulations and subsidies that restrict trade: for example, laws that determine when canned tuna can be labeled “dolphin safe” or that compensate farmers for planting some crops (or not planting others). Doing away with these barriers to open trade is difficult, since they promote popular social goals and therefore have their own constituencies. And global trade negotiations must compete for governments’ time and attention with talks on regional and bilateral trade liberalization.5 Then...