Protectionism is a practice of economic policy often involving but not limited to a slew of tariffs, import quotas and subsidies. This term of protectionism is often used in conjunction with other terms such as isolationism or nationalist even.
However, that could be further from the truth, protectionism would be more accurately defined as Economic Nationalism. This does not mean that states instantly close up or act in hostility towards existing trade partners. The grand misconception of economic nationalism originates from the belief that it directly opposes our modern and current liberal world order. This idea of mutual exclusivity inhibits our ability to analyse rationale and nuances behind domestic state policies that seemingly threaten the delicate fabric of our liberal international system just by virtue of looking inwards at the materialist conditions of their people.
In all fairness, this phenomenon and fearmongering of protectionism worsening our lives arguably might have started around 2016 with Trumponomics in a staggering electoral college victory favouring Donald J. Trump. Despite having control over the house and senate in the first 3 years of his term, his policies were fairly just and moderate with the key policy in question being the Reciprocal Trade Act. One that allows the United States to retaliate against tariffs placed upon them with tariffs of their own such as against China or various EU states. This idea of retaliation being a problem to the international community was out of fear that the US was in the midst of exerting its hegemonic position and thereby imposing its will on the entirety of the world. Such fearmongering did no benefits to the creation of foreign policy in many states but in fact led to them reflecting and stepping back on their actions against US exports.
Protectionism is not something that we should be afraid of but something that we should understand to be natural in the cycle of the international political economy. As with all policies involving trade and relations, moderation is necessary. The expectation for states to open their economies must be moderate as we observe worsening inequality and heightened exploitation in states such as Vietnam, India and South Africa, it is perfectly fair and reasonable for others to be cautious before conceding their economies to the brutal competitive forces internationally. Exploitation is a cycle that is often overlooked by those donning their liberal lenses, it is a common and conveniently ignored brutality that stems from liberalism and the acceleration of free trade agreements. However, in developed states, they are often punished when they attempt to replicate strategies of protectionism practiced by exploited states. The US has been a subject of numerous tariffs from fellow developed states in the EU and various neighbouring states not forgetting their distant rival in the Asia Pacific, China. How then is it fair that the most powerful state in the world is punished by virtue of simply being the most powerful, richest and present around the globe? The punishments imposed on the US are unjust and there is no reason why states should be surprised when retaliatory tariffs are imposed on them, the Golden Rule is most relevant when we observe such economic activities.
While it is true that protectionism can be considered relatively selfish, the expectation for states to act as sitting ducks in an anarchic economy is preposterous. States have an obligation to protect the very interests and domestic needs that their people demand from them, the people should always come before the international community when building an economy. Indeed, when we change the phrasing and optics of criticism it begins to sound more absurd as it devolves into an argument against people. We must truly realise that protectionism exists temporarily as does open trade. Each phase complements one another, as the seasons of the lands change, so do the seasons of the economy. Protectionism allows nascent domestic industries to have the time to be nurtured into innovative power houses that can eventually go out into the international market and compete with more experienced counterparts, driving each other to innovate. Likewise, over years of open trade, we will observe various industries in various states begin to dwindle and collapse even, this is a sign that it is time to draw back inwards and to support these industries in building back up once more. This intense cycle is necessary for the progress of humanity over an extended period of time. It would be extremely myopic for us to simply see economic nationalist policies and believe it to be the end of the world. Just because the dynamism of the international economy shifts does not mean the international world order becomes unstable and collapses.
At the end of the day, to temper discussion and terminology is vital to analysis over the trends and patterns of shifting global economic interactions. The world order is unlikely to change simply because of economic shifts and that is the reality we must recognise as objective analysts regardless of our personal beliefs or push for personal benefit. Furthermore, we must acknowledge the progression of time and surrender our existing means of interactions if they are no longer viable. The United Nations cannot stand for human rights yet believe that open trade which exposes many lacking labour laws to exploitation is a viable means of continuation. As we begin or rather have already entered an era of economic nationalism, states must begin to prepare for the next wave of liberal open trade through generating policies that protect their people from exploitation. However, I am personally inclined to believe that a number of states are likely to go overboard with their policing of exploitation such that a point of no return may be encountered. As such, it is critical for states to temper their analysis and express foresight into the next liberal trade order rather than the current nationalist trade order. Only then, shall we hopefully see a brighter era of open trade.
