传统基金会：贸易保护主义无法阻止全球贸易自由化
提要：自去年美国中期选举以来，美国国会的贸易保护主义情绪日趋高涨。美国贸易保护主义势力将美国就业机会的大量流失和贸易赤字的持续攀升归咎于贸易自由化。但事实却恰恰相反，贸易自由化是推动美国经济增长的基石。而实际上，许多经济学家认为美国的贸易赤字是国内投资过热所导致，一旦政府抑制投资活动，贸易赤字自然会下降。（外脑精华·北京）美国会贸易保护主义色彩愈加浓厚
克林顿总统执政时期，民主党议员大多是自由贸易和全球化的支持者。1993年11月， 102位民主党议员投票支持签订《北美自由贸易协议》；1999年7月， 105位民主党议员投票支持给予中国永久正常贸易关系地位。但自2000年失去国会多数席位后，6年间民主党权力尽失，并且变得越来越敌视全球化。在2005年投票表决《美国—多米尼加—中美洲自由贸易协定》时，仅有15名民主党议员投了支持票；在2006年国会投票表决《美国—阿曼自由贸易协定》时，只有22名民主党议员投了赞成票。
共和党议员中支持自由贸易的人数也明显减少。尽管近期众议院中的共和党议员在投票表决中以压倒性多数通过了《美国—多米尼加—中美洲自由贸易协定》、《美国—阿曼自由贸易协定》和《美国—巴林自由贸易协定》，但要推进贸易自由化，仅仅签订贸易协定是远远不够的。
其他一些现象则更令人担忧。在国会通过的以下一系列法案中，多数共和党议员投了赞成票：2005年8月否决中国海洋石油公司并购优尼科石油公司计划；2006年初否决迪拜世界港口公司收购美国港口经营权计划；要求对紧盯美元的人民币汇率机制采取惩罚性措施；在改革农业贸易政策可以打破多哈会谈僵局的情况下，依然坚持现行的农业贸易政策；要求农业部严格审查进口农产品原产地证明。
自2006年中期选举以来，共和党人和民主党人对自由贸易的疑虑似乎都在与日俱增。例如，共和党总统候选人及现众议院议员邓肯·亨特在近期对保守派发表的一次讲话中放言，“我可以告诉你们，如果我成为美国总统，我将废除现行的中美贸易协定。更重要的是，我将阻止中国通过现行贸易协定进行贸易欺诈，我们在签署贸易协定时将采取新的政策。”
总统贸易促进权将于今年6月30日到期，恰逢世贸组织多哈回合谈判艰难推进之际。但令人遗憾的是，即使现在多哈回合谈判能够取得突破，由于讨论法律细节和美国国会的评审都需要时间，因此国会对多哈回合最终协定的表决，必然要拖延到总统贸易促进权失效之后。因此，真正的挑战在于，国会是否会授权美国谈判代表完成这项多边贸易谈判吗？
那些参与多哈会谈的代表知道，许多国家的特殊利益集团正在谋划使本轮会谈最终流产，尤其是欧洲农业利益团体。欧洲保护主义者显然在拖延多哈会谈进程，并希望通过美国国会的反对声掩饰他们阻挠谈判的意图。同样，美国国会的全球化反对势力也乐于看到多哈会谈中的成员蓄意阻挠谈判进程，以免使自己成为众矢之的。
同时，一些认为自由贸易有助于脱贫的民主党议员正在致力于同政府探讨一个折中方案，以使政府获取新的总统贸易促进权。众议院筹款委员会查尔斯·兰格正在全力促成政府和国会达成共识，这种努力十分值得称道。但对那些致力于推动经济自由化的人士而言，总体形势则有些令人失望。由于倾向于签订带有附加条款的贸易协定，自由贸易已名存实亡。“不错，美国和秘鲁可以进行自由贸易，但前提是必须满足美国的若干条件” 。
保尔森呼吁抵制贸易保护主义
在感觉两党都在滑向贸易保护主义后，财政部长汉克·保尔森以支持美国经济开放的理性言论做出回应。他在2006年8月1日的讲话中首次直言不讳地指出美国贸易保护主义正在抬头。“令人遗憾的是，我看到这种贸易保护主义情绪在使多哈回合全球贸易谈判陷入泥潭。” 在7个月后，保尔森在盛顿经济俱乐部上发表的讲话中对贸易保护主义进行了更为严厉的指责。尽管美国经济状况良好，居民生活水准在不断提高，但越来越多的美国人却认为自由贸易弊多利少。两党中的某些政客为了顺应选民的意愿，正在进一步迈向贸易保护主义。这是一种令人担忧的趋势，我们必须抵制这种势头。
下面我们来回顾一下保尔森财长提出的一些重要论点。“我们国家富有活力的经济的确引发了一些混乱和担忧。”然而，自由贸易不应成为经济形势令人担忧的“替罪羊”，因为经济全球化趋势不可阻挡。“从事国际贸易的美国企业雇员人数超过了5700万”。鉴于2003年中期以来美国新增了700万以上的就业岗位，中国和《北美自由贸易协定》导致大量就业机会流失的说法完全是无稽之谈。美国进口需求旺盛。限制进口的做法并不符合多数美国人的利益。他们将被剥夺选择更多种类商品和服务的自由，无异于向依靠购买低价商品来增强家庭消费能力的美国居民残忍地征收赋税。美国的工资水平在增长而不是下降。“全球化运营的美国跨国企业的员工薪资水平较全美薪资平均水平高出了近20%” 。美国工业正在蒸蒸日上，而不是下滑。“美国是全球制造业的霸主，在全球工业附加总值的比重超过了20%，高于日本，是德国的两倍、中国的2.6倍”。目前美国制造业正处于最繁荣的时期，在就业人数与上世纪50年代基本持平的情况下，工业产值却是当时的7倍。
经济全球化是大势所趋
全球经济一体化程度在逐年提高。美国对新贸易协定采取的消极姿态不会阻碍全球贸易增长步伐，只会推动全球贸易的增长。早在互惠的多边贸易协定出现前，全球贸易就一直在不断增长。在WTO框架下，推动贸易自由化将使美国经济增长引擎变得更为强劲。多哈自由贸易协定的签订将为美国带来巨大的经济利益，推动美国全球化扩张进程。但更严峻的考验是美国是否会通过向“汇率操纵国”或“非市场化国家”征收惩罚性关税而在贸易保护主义道路上越陷越深。
美国贸易逆差在2006年创下新高，达到了7636亿美元。贸易逆差在GDP中的比重为5.8%，但高额贸易赤字并没有伤害美国经济。美国有大量的就业机会，失业率低，劳动生产率水平也领先于全球。实际上，许多经济学家认为美国的贸易赤字是国内投资过热导致的，一旦政府抑制投资活动，贸易赤字自然会下降。没有人比美联储主席本·伯南克更清楚这一点，他的“全球储蓄过剩”理论阐明了其中的因果关系。2007年3月9日发布的政府报告显示，1月份美国贸易逆差较上月略有减少，出口额增长了15亿美元，而进口额减少了10亿美元。但这一定是好事吗？恰如保尔森财长所言，“美国上一次出现贸易顺差是在经济衰退时期”。
英文原文：Free Trade Is Dead. Long Live Free Trade
The Democratic Party under the leadership of President Bill Clinton was largely pro-trade and pro-globalization. Witness the 102 Democratic votes for NAFTA in November 1993 or the 105 Democratic votes in favor of normalized trade relations with China in July 1999. But after major losses in 2000, the party spent six years completely out of power and became increasingly hostile to globalization. There were just 15 Democratic votes in the House in favor of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement （DR-CAFTA） in 2005 and 22 in favor of the Oman trade agreement in 2006.
Republican support for free trade has slipped markedly as well. While House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for recent trade deals such as DR-CAFTA, Oman, and Bahrain, there is much more to promoting free trade than trade agreements. A number of other indicators are more worrisome. Consider the relatively large numbers of Republican votes in the House that supported these policies:
Forcing China's state-owned oil company, CNOOC, to back away from its successful bid to buy the oil company Unocal in August 2005;
Forcing Dubai Port World to withdraw its bid for U.S. ports in early 2006;
Requiring or authorizing punitive measures against China for pegging the yuan to the dollar;
Maintaining current agriculture programs, when reform could break the Doha logjam; and
Requiring the Department of Agriculture to require country of origin labeling.
In the months since the 2006 election, both Republicans and Democrats have sounded increasingly skeptical of trade. For example, GOP presidential candidate and sitting House Member Duncan Hunter recently said in a speech to conservatives, \"And I can tell you that as president of the United States, I will junk the bad trade deal that we currently have with China. More importantly, I'll stop their cheating on the one that we have right now. We're going to have a new policy with respect to trade deals.\"
This spring, representatives and senators will have their true trade colors tested during a critical time. The President's trade promotion authority （TPA） expires on June 30 of this year, just as the World Trade Organization （WTO） is inching toward agreement on its Doha round. All the rhetoric about \"protecting\" Americans from trade will be put to the test every time a bilateral deal is voted on, and especially when Doha and TPA votes are taken.
For the record, the last five-year renewal vote on TPA was back in 2002. There were 190 Republican \"yeas\" and 27 Republican \"nays,\" compared to 25 Democratic \"yeas\" and 183 Democratic \"nays.\"
Sadly, even if a negotiating breakthrough in the Doha round were to occur today, the legal details and review time would delay a vote on the final agreement in Congress until after the current TPA expires. So the real challenge is this: Will Congress grant American negotiators the authority to close this multilateral deal?
Those who have followed the tortuous progression of Doha know that special interest groups in many countries are scheming to abort this round, notably European agribusiness. The protectionists in Europe are undoubtedly dragging their feet at the negotiating table, hoping that dithering by the U.S. Congress absolves their own sloth. Likewise, anti-globalists on Capitol Hill are happy to see agonized good-faith sloth among Doha negotiators, making any sloth on their part seem inconsequential.
Meanwhile, some Democratic Members who believe in the power of trade against poverty are working with the Administration to hash out a workable compromise on what a new TPA might look like. Representative Charlie Rangel （D–NY）, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, is leading the effort to carve out common ground. This effort is commendable.
But for those who promote economic freedom, the entire spectacle is somewhat deceiving. Free trade is dead, living on in policymaking as a euphemism for conditional trade deals. \"Yes, Peru, Americans will trade 'freely' with your citizens on the condition that you do X, Y, and Z.\" This is not the American way; conditional interstate commerce among the United States was made unconstitutional in 1789 precisely because the Founding Fathers recognized the pettiness and gross inefficiency of protectionism.
Paulson Calls Out Protectionism
Sensing this bipartisan slide toward protectionism, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has responded with very principled arguments in favor of American openness. Paulson started calling a spade a spade in his first speech as Treasury Secretary on August 1, 2006, in which he said of protectionism, \"Sadly, I have seen this mindset paralyze the Doha round of global trade negotiations.\"
Exactly seven months later, Paulson gave an even harder hitting speech before the Economic Club of Washington:
Despite our healthy economy and rising living standards, more and more Americans seem to doubt that trade brings greater benefits than costs. Some politicians from both parties, reflecting what they are hearing from their constituents, are moving further toward embracing protectionism. This is a worrisome trend. And it is a trend we must resist.
A number of Secretary Paulson's vital points bear repeating:
\"Our dynamic economy...does create dislocations and anxiety.\" However, trade should not be the \"scapegoat\" for that anxiety because \"the global economy is here to stay.\"
\"More than 57 million Americans are employed by businesses that engage in international trade.\" Losing jobs to China or NAFTA was and is a bogeyman, especially in light of the more than 7 million new payroll jobs created since mid-2003.
Imports are good for the U.S. economy. \"imitations on imports do not benefit the vast majority of Americans. They deny people the freedom to choose from a broader array of goods and services, and impose a cruel tax on people who rely on low prices to stretch their family budgets.\"
American wages are thriving, not declining. \"Globally engaged U.S. multinationals on average pay their employees about 20 percent above the national average.\"
American industry is thriving, not declining. \"America is the world's number one manufacturer, accounting for more than 20 percent of worldwide manufacturing value-added－that's more than Japan, twice as much as Germany, and more than 2.6 times as much as China. We manufacture more today than we ever have in our history－seven times as much real output as in 1950, with about the same number of workers.\"
America needs to rethink the way it categorizes workers. \"Service industries, which account for 80 percent of employment in America, our ten highest paying industries.\" It is high time official statistics refine the employment category \"Service\" with narrower categories, such as \"knowledge,\" \"trade,\" \"health,\" and \"government.\"
The Global Economy Is Here to Stay
Every year, global economic integration deepens. Inaction in promoting new agreements will not slow the growth of trade, only the acceleration of the growth of trade. Trade flows have been expanding for centuries, long before preferential, multilateral arrangements existed.
Yes, increased trade via the WTO would be more grease for the machine of growth. A deal on the Doha round would be worth billions for U.S. prosperity and for development worldwide. But a larger test is whether the U.S. becomes actively protectionist with the passage of targeted tariffs aimed at \"currency manipulators\" or \"non-marketing economies\" （NMEs）. These are dangerous policies, and one can only hope that support for them－in all parties－is still in the minority.
The largest trade deficit in American history occurred just last year, when imports of goods and services exceeded exports by $763.6 billion. As a percentage of GDP, this measured 5.8 percent, the same as the year before. Contrary to the naysayers' fretting, there is no harm in a high trade deficit. Jobs are plentiful, unemployment is low, and American productivity is the envy of the world. Indeed, many economists believe the goods deficit is a consequence of America's investment surplus and will only recede when America becomes less friendly to entrepreneurship. None other than Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, suggested this direction of causality with his \"global savings glut\" theory.
On March 9, 2007, the government reported that the January trade balance had narrowed slightly from the month before－exports up by one and a half billion, imports down by one billion. But is this an improvement? As Secretary Paulson remarked, \"The last time we ran a trade surplus our economy was in recession.\"
Tim Kane, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.
来源：传统基金会，2007.03.27，作者：Tim Kane, Ph.D
页:
[1]