United States and Trade

Allison Cannon

AMPF

4/11/18

Professor Shirk

Write Up

What are the US interests in trade?  Is it to create a freer, more prosperous world, to satisfy local interests by 'winning' trade, to serve interest groups, or to build a US-led world order?  Or is it some combination of the above?

            The United States often touts trade as a symbol of all that is great about America. American ideals are built around the idea trade since the industrial revolution trade has been what has made the United States the global hegemon that it is. We teach that these ideals are essential as well, the first thing one learns in an economics course is that "trade can make everyone better off." This has been the basis of America's foreign policy regarding trade, or at least that is the guise under which the real reasons lie.

            Does America genuinely care if another country benefits from our trade partnerships? The simple answer is probably not; maybe if trade strengthens alliances but otherwise, helping another nation to gain power only diminishes your own. Besides that, America often acts in a realist sense and acts "rationally" meaning it acts in self-interest. The United States would never stop trading with a country because the deal wasn't beneficial to the other party. The purpose of trade is to make oneself better off.

            When the United States attempts to interfere in another country's politics, especially that of a developing country, the motives behind the behavior are not as apparent as one would believe. America boasts that its policies of democracy and free trade are what helps to make countries stable, fair and free. This policy does seem to be effective in stabilizing a nation and allowing its economy to grow and begin trading. Could it be that the motive for the United States to assist these countries could be to take advantage of them once they begin to trade?

            The global south is far less developed than the global north making it particularly vulnerable to influence by powerful nations. These more powerful nations of the global south have discovered that an easy way to control these developing countries is by dictating the success of their economy. As the United States is in a never-ending battle for world power over the Russians and Chinese, it is essential that United States foreign policy sweep up as many countries as possible into the Western sphere of influence.

            These actions could certainly be seen as malicious, but they are completely rational as The United States is acting in self-interest. The actions taken by the United States regarding trade have, first and foremost, been implemented in order to benefit the American people. Every nation acts in self-interest and America is no exception. It is not wrong for the United States to act in this way. There are some issues with morality when it comes to taking advantage of the global south, but as long as we are helping those nations become free and prosperous, I feel it is okay that we may have helped them to benefit ourselves. Otherwise, would we have taken those actions and helped the people of the global south? Probably not. While the world is not a perfect place and while it may never be, this is an instance of all countries involved acting in self-interest and a positive outcome arising from the situation. Until we reach a time where countries can benefit from each other by not being self-interested, this is the best way to do something positive for every nation involved.

            In conclusion, trade is used by the United States in order to advance American ideals, push western values and economically benefit the United States. The positive externalities are that the other nations involved benefit as well by stabilizing their economy and creating an environment where democracy can grow. Democracy growth is unarguably a good thing, especially from an American standpoint as democracy has tended to create peace, reduce human suffering and decrease corruption. The reasons the United States chooses to promote trade may or may not be to promote democracy, but it inevitably does so.