Welcome to BASE21

On 6th March, US President George Bush proclaimed that import tariffs of up to 30% would be imposed to protect the US steel industry. Along with the mainstream media, those countries that have been exporting steel to the US, namely the EU and Asian countries, are heavily criticising this 'protectionism' of the US. How can anybody resort to protectionism in this era of free trade? Especially the US, which has up till now proclaimed itself to be an enthusiastic patron of 'free trade' within the multilateral trade regime? Perhaps the EU and Asian countries have every reason to be angered by the imposition of tariffs. It is expected that European steel producers will face, on the average, a 2.6% loss in sales while Asian countries that rely heavily on US steel will experience an abrupt rise in costs. Thus, the EU and Asian countries including Korea are preparing themselves for an all-out 'war' with the US, starting with filing a suit at the WTO.

In the meantime, while the US and other governments are pointing their guns at each other, most progressive groups are keeping silent, apart from the small minority who criticised the US. Perhaps it is because this case is thought to be merely a fight between the elites. This is not incorrect. It is indeed a fight among the 멻aves? However, the matter is not all that simple. First of all, the scene where the US steel workers union sat together with the their CEOs to welcome the tariffs while the EU workers union sat with theirs to denounce it, is rather worrisome. There has been a common view among progressive forces that unions in the North were gradually overcoming their protectionist stance, but the unions now siding with their governments could very well dash these hopes. There is also the dilemma that the effectiveness of 멲nti-globalisation?and 멲nti-free trade?slogans have now proven inappropriate. After all, we cannot simply support US 몆rotectionism?in the name of resisting against globalisation and free trade.

Intentions of the US and Essence of the Matter

The ostensible objective of the high steel import tariffs is quite simple. A 몊afeguard?is a type of a 몊afety measure?secured by the WTO, that can be exercised up to three years when a country judges its industry to be threatened with fall in prices by an abrupt increase in imports. In fact, many US steel companies have become bankrupt, and the US hopes to stimulate its sliding economy by protecting the steel industry. Europe claims that US steel imports have in fact decreased during the last couple of years, while the US argues that its steel industry is indeed in danger because of the unfair government subsidies of European governments. It is also arguing that the prices of US-produced goods have become relatively lower due to the strong-dollar policy.

There is, of course, a less obvious and more complicated scheme behind all this. US steel workers, facing massive lay-offs and cut in pensions and benefits that have been won through decades of hard struggle, camped in front of the White House last December demanding a 40% tariff. Bush, not willing to take on the burden of compensating for the cuts in pensions and benefits yet wanting to gather support from the workers in the upcoming elections, presented the 30% tariff as a countermeasure to employment instability and deterioration in working conditions. However, what the workers really need is not the tariff itself, but protection of their jobs and better working conditions. Unfortunately, because the union was willing to scale back its demands by asking for only an import tariff, while ignoring issues of wages and job security. Thus, Bush was able to make a proposition that was 몊atisfactory?to both capitalists and trade unions, and consolidate a seeming 멻armony?between government, management and workers, and at the same time collect votes from the strongly Democratic steel states.

The first problem of whether or not import tariffs will be able to revive the ailing US economy 뻕nd also the global economy- is not something to be discussed here in detail. However, there is a couple of things that should be pointed out. The hike in steel prices could very well pose a threat to other industries within the US that rely on steel, such as automobiles. More importantly, the economic slow-down that the US is experiencing is a structural depression brought on by the decrease in general rate of profit 뻯he result of financial globalisation policies such as deregularisation etc.. The US steel industry, during the last couple of decades, has implemented restructuring of the industry through automation, reduction in capacity, outsourcing and labour flexibility. Also, although the strong-dollar policy did bring about relatively low prices for imported goods, the reality is that while manufacturing sectors suffered from lack of capital and low prices, the financial sector enjoyed an abundance of capital. The 몂ver-valued?dollar was used to attract foreign financial capital into US markets and Wall Street enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. Like elsewhere under the rule of financial globalisation, foreign direct investments that consist mostly of speculative capital were not used for productive investments but for playing in the 몀ake money through money?game. And it is precisely the accumulation of such speculative capital that is driving the US economy, as well of the whole world, into danger. Therefore, the logic that the economy can be saved by imposition of import tariffs not only misses the heart of the issue, it distorts it entirely.

The reality behind the decline in the profitability of the steel industry is also the core to understanding the mechanisms of class management that is inherent inside Bush뭩 decision. Not only is the import tariff unable to revive, in the long-run, the shrinking of the steel industry, it cannot stabilise employment or improve working conditions. Job insecurity and deterioration of working conditions are not caused by 멷xcessive imports? but rather by the structural crisis within capitalism due to financial globalisation, and the flexibility of labour promoted within the steel industry. Ultimately, protection of profitability and prevention of price falls through controlling 멷xcessive imports?are interests of the capitalist class, not the working class. The steel workers union is not only looking in the wrong direction but is also being blinded by the ruling class ideology that relies on nationalism and scapegoats other countries for the problems caused by capitalism and its actors. Also, the union has overlooked the fact that the rise in the price of steel will lead to rises in costs for other heavy industries and result in wage decreases and lay-offs for workers throughout all sectors.

Free Trade vs. Protectionism?

The problem is that the class management effects of import tariffs are not limited to US workers alone. It can cause divisions between social movements of the North and South, and weaken hard-won internationalism. The logic that 밺eterioration in working conditions of US workers comes from abroad (low-price imports, dumping, Third World뭩 low-wage labour etc.)?has been adopted by trade unions and NGOs several times before, and has been promoted as protection for US workers. It was the logic behind the AFL-CIO뭩 denouncement of the Permanent National Treatment(PNTR) and WTO membership of China, and its demand for social clauses to be incorporated into the WTO. Although it has been proven many times that low-price imports produced by Chinese and other low-wage Third World workers are not responsible for job insecurity and worsening working conditions in the US, the US government, as well as those of other developed countries, was able to effectively protect the interests of US capitalists through the use of nationalist agendas to pacify the resistance of the working class and disrupt the unity of workers in the North and South. The imposition of import tariffs, the series of retaliatory measures that followed, and the identification by the unions for each of the two perspectives will encourage division between US workers and those in Europe and Asia, and undermine internationalism of the working class. Nationalism and protectionism had previously brought about serious setbacks to the anti-neoliberalism movement that calls for solidarity between social movements in the North and South and radical alternatives to financial globalisation. However, recent efforts by US trade unions to develop an internationalist stance by actively participating in global movements against neoliberalism had quelled these concerns to a certain extent. Are they moving backwards again? US unions?recent support of import tariffs and protectionism can only be of great concern to international social movements. Thus, it is extremely important for social movements and trade unions worldwide to directly target neoliberalism as being responsible for deterioration in living conditions of workers. The intentions of Bush and the elites should be exposed, while it should be clearly stated that the fight over import tariffs cannot be an alternative for workers either in the US, Europe or Asia. It is within this framework of protesting against neoliberal flexibility of labour as it is, that international solidarity of workers and social movements can be attained.

Looking at the imposition of import tariffs as a structural issue resulting from financial globalisation allows us in the anti-neoliberal movement to break through the dilemma posed by the juxtaposition of 멹ree trade?and 몆rotectionism? At the same time, it provides us with an opportunity to expose the essence of 멹ree trade?that developed countries have until now enforced upon the rest of the world. The dilemma manifested by the present situation and faced by the slogan 몁o to free trade? is not a 몀istake?made in the usage of the term by social movements. The demand did not come out from a protectionist perspective, but from the reality that 멹ree trade?logic is being used in the interest of global capitalists and ruling elites at the expense of the peoples of the world. Social movements have used the term to symbolically resist the 멹ree trade?that is free only for capitalists and investors by using their language. However, there have been concerns, even before the import tariff issue, that the symbolic strength of the term 멲nti-free trade?is weakening and misleading, along with the term 멲nti-globalisation? The core slogans of international social movements have fallen into the mannerism of symbols. Perhaps one can say that the present 몊teel war?brought about a crisis in the taken-for-granted usage of these slogans, but it is also important to use the opportunity for exposing the fact that 멹ree trade?was not really 멹ree?trade, and that 멹ree trade?and 몆rotectionism?are two sides of the same coin. We must also now be more practical and specific 뻛xactly for whom is trade 멹ree? and exactly what do we want to 몆rotect?

The US imposition of tariffs on steel imports and its repercussions are not a mere fist-fight among the 멻aves?which we can stand silently watching with our arms crossed. In a situation where the international solidarity movement against neoliberalism and capitalism is growing, it is important that we keep a keen eye and speak out. The internationalist movement should look at these tariffs as a frantic makeshift policy of the ruling elites to protect decreasing profits, and come up with strategies to prevent divisions between social movements. It is also high-time that we 몉escue?the 멲nti-free trade?slogan from the dichotomy of 멹ree trade vs. protectionism?enforced by the ruling elite and place it within the context of a broader resistance against neoliberal globalisation as a whole. Thus we will then be able to secure the successes of the international anti-neoliberal movement that has overcome the threats posed by the 멬ar against Terrorism? inauguration of the WTO New Round and the Argentine crisis among many, and contribute to its further dissemination.