[has the FT already made up its mind about the Bush regime? I see only negativity and fear. mark] Published: January 10 2001 19:50GMT | Last Updated: January 10 2001 19:53GMT When Bill Clinton first became US president, he pledged that trade would top his foreign policy agenda. But George W. Bush's delay in appointing a US trade representative and rumours that the job may be dropped from the cabinet suggest that he is less sure of his priorities. Mr Bush may simply want to review or restructure his administration's apparatus for inter-national economic policymaking before naming a USTR. Mr Clinton substantially expanded White House machinery in this area. There may well be a case for re-shaping his bureaucratic legacy. However, to downgrade the role of trade policy would be a mistake. The steadily increasing importance of trade to the US economy has made other countries' prosperity heavily dependent on its market and reinforced US interest in an open world trade system. And in the year ahead, expanded exports will be needed to offset flagging growth at home. Furthermore, active trade diplomacy is increasingly vital in maintaining stable international relations. That is particularly true in regard to Europe: not only is the European Union the biggest US trade partner but trade questions have - for good or ill - long dominated the dialogue between Brussels and Washington. Whether the USTR carries cabinet rank probably matters less than the stature of whoever does the job. Above all, he or she should be a skilful political heavyweight who is trusted and respected by the president and carries clout in Congress. One reason is that all trade deals involve compromises, which must be sold successfully at home. Another is that a USTR can be effective only if trade partners know he or she speaks with the full authority and support of the White House. The international credibility of the USTR also depends on the job being distanced as far as possible from special interests. The biggest mistake Mr Bush could make would be to give primacy in trade policy to the Commerce Department. Its perspective is too narrow and framed by excessively close ties with often protectionist producer lobbies. How far Mr Bush can advance trade liberalisation in the face of a divided Congress is uncertain. If the US enters a recession, the agenda risks being shaped by a resurgence of protectionist pressures. These, and any temptation to relapse into unilateralism, need to be firmly resisted. Giving way would not only harm other countries. It would also threaten a backlash of retaliation that the US cannot afford when its own prosperity is so closely linked to the global economy. Mr Bush's choice of USTR will send an important political signal about his trade agenda. It will also critically influence how the rest of the world responds. _______________________________________________ Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
