Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

Throughout the course of the Bush administration, a constant irritant in the Asia/Pacific region was Bush's tendency to place antiterrorism at the top of the queue in Asia/Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) discussions.  Not that anti-terrorism wasn't important, but APEC was not the proper forum for that -- APEC is all about regional economic integration.  China, by wanting to talk about trade, made a lot of diplomatic headway by distinguishing itself from the United States.

I bring this up because, according to the FT's Edward Luce, it looks like the Obama administration's policy malaise on trade is not winning it any allies in East Asia

In a meeting with President Barack Obama last week, Lee Kuan Yew, the veteran former prime minister of Singapore, said he felt privileged to meet the US leader at a “time of renewal and change in America and during a period of transition where the world order is changing”.

At private meetings around Washington, however, Mr Lee’s message was rather more blunt.

“You guys are giving China a free run in Asia,” he told Fred Bergsten, the director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “The vacuum in US policy is enabling the Chinese to make the running.”

Mr Lee’s timing was apposite. On Wednesday Mr Obama leaves for Tokyo for a regional tour that will include China, South Korea and Singapore, where Mr Lee’s government is hosting a summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum this weekend. Surveys in each country show that Mr Obama’s popularity has helped to restore the battered US standing in the region.

But the views of Asian governments do not always chime with those of their public. Across the region, concern is rising about the absence of US leadership on trade since Mr Obama took office. Few believe that he has the will or power to restart the Doha round of global trade talks – and he has not asked Congress for a renewal of the presi- dent’s fast-track negotiating authority.

Fewer still believe that he will be able to ratify the landmark 2007 US-South Korea free-trade agreement in the face of strong hostility in Congress....

while globalisation gets steadily less popular in the US, other parts of the world are moving ahead. South Korea recently concluded a free-trade deal with Europe. Japan is holding similar talks with the European Union. Ironically, the EU broached the talks as a way of protecting itself against the trade-diverting effects of the now moribund US-Korea deal.

US business lobby groups are hoping Mr Obama will be able to achieve some kind of a breakthrough in Seoul next week. Given that it would be futile for him to send the free-trade agreement back to Capitol Hill, any new steps would have to include a renegotiation of the deal to include better market access for US cars.

“It is really important to understand just how badly the US is screwing itself on trade,” said Mr Bergsten. “By having an inactive trade policy, others are rushing to fill the vacuum.”

For an administration that claims it wants to have better relations with its allies, Obama and his foreign policy team have been remarkably tone-deaf when it comes to trade policy. 

At every major summit meeting since he's come to office, Obama has heard complaints about the lack of U.S. leadership on the trade front.  This administration has demonstrated that it's not afraid to tackle multiple, complex challenges at the same time -- and yet they've been either mute or worse when it comes to trade. 

Barack Obama's decision to put trade policy in a lockbox and throw away the key is utterly appalling -- and, from a foreign policy perspective, completely counterproductive. 

 

ZJIN

2:13 PM ET

November 10, 2009

You cannot blame him really.

You cannot blame him really. Obama just does not have the power to push on trade policy. If he could merely prevent the protectionism escalating any further, Asian would say thank god.

 

BLUE13326

7:43 PM ET

November 10, 2009

This brings to mind a column

This brings to mind a column by Spengler from June in The Asia Times about how Obama is creating a deadly power vacuum--with potentially dire consequences.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF30Ak02.html

The protectionism may make a bad situation much worse.

 

ESTENIEAU JEAN

1:28 PM ET

November 11, 2009

It is totally unfair to blame

It is totally unfair to blame the Obama administration for having an inactive trade policy while the Bush administration spent the last eight years fighting rogue nations and ignoring the consequences of globalization. Furthermore, this administration's imperial fight created more vacuum within the economic sector. The Obama administration inherited two wars and is currently trying to restore America's image within the rest of the world. What I would say is that we are no longer living the 'Unipolar system' and for this reason we must change the way we act within the economic system.

 

HANMENG

2:59 PM ET

November 12, 2009

This policy just shows how far left Obama is.

He wants to make the unions happy, so he gives them what they ask for, without regard to his trading partners, not to speak of jacking up prices for American consumers.

 

UMESHGEETA

4:28 AM ET

November 14, 2009

Obama Trade Policy

I think the only reason is - even if turning down one Trade Agreement can save 1000 jobs for a year or so; Obama Administration will do that.

They are really desperate to get the employment engine humming. You can liberalize the trade any time you want. It is not the USA market is going to superseded by China in next 2 to 3 years.

 

MMAINELLO

9:09 PM ET

November 14, 2009

Blaming Bush

Come on is that all you guys can do.

His administration negotiated the deals, submitted them to Congress and Congress blocked them. A DEMOCRAT led congress. Please be honest with yourself and at least look at who is to blame.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More