- African Growth and Opportunity Act
TRALAC - Trade Law Centre
You are here: Home/News/Article/What will Trump’s embrace of bilateralism mean for America’s trade partners?

What will Trump’s embrace of bilateralism mean for America’s trade partners?

What will Trump’s embrace of bilateralism mean for America’s trade partners?
Published date:
Wednesday, 08 February 2017
Geoffrey Gertz

Among the many changes Donald Trump is bringing to American trade policy, the new president has made clear that he believes bilateral trade deals are better than regional or multilateral agreements.

For America’s trade partners, including developing countries, the rise of bilateralism raises three questions.

First, how will it change negotiation dynamics? Second, will it allow for the effective governance of international trade? And third, what does it say about the overall direction of the international trade system? On each count there are reasons to worry.

Donald Trump campaigned as a protectionist, and in one of his first acts as president withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Yet since assuming power he has also stressed that he is not opposed to all trade agreements, and in fact supports new deals, so long as they’re negotiated on a bilateral basis. Last month Trump told Republican lawmakers, “believe me, we’re going to have a lot of trade deals. But they’ll be one-on-one. There won’t be a whole big mash pot.”

Trump’s embrace of bilateral negotiations is borne out of his understanding of the global economy as a zero-sum conflict. From this starting point, it follows that the key question in assessing any trade deal is not whether it creates overall economic gains, but how its benefits are distributed between countries—who’s getting the biggest slice of the pie. Trump worries that in previous trade negotiations, and particularly talks involving several different countries, U.S. negotiators have allowed other countries to gain at America’s expense. But in one-on-one negotiations, Trump suggests the U.S. will have greater leverage and thereby be able to capture a greater share of the gains from any agreement.

To date it is unclear with which particular countries Trump aims to sign new trade deals. While the administration’s early energy appears to be focused on the U.K. and Japan, another list of potential targets ranges from Russia to Vietnam to Taiwan, while India’s Economic Times cited unnamed sources claiming Trump might offer a bilateral deal to India. Though the world’s poorest countries are unlikely to be at the front of the line, many developing and emerging economies may face the possibility of launching bilateral trade talks with the Trump administration.

On the one hand, Trump’s interest in pursuing new trade agreements may suggest that he will not follow through on all of his protectionist impulses. Yet his administration’s embrace of bilateralism carries three risks for America’s trade partners.

First, a switch from regional and multilateral forums to purely bilateral deals will shift negotiation dynamics between would-be trade partners. Trump certainly believes the U.S. can better use its power to shape agreements in its own interests through bilateral formats. While the president understates the power the U.S. held in regional talks—for instance, in reality the final TPP text overwhelmingly reflected American influence—and likely overestimates how good a deal he’ll get in one-on-one negotiations, developing countries should be cautious about such a move. Multiparty negotiations allow for coalitional bargaining that can at times blunt power imbalances. Moreover, with more players involved in trade negotiations there is a greater range of possible outcomes, which creates opportunities for creative win-win solutions; bilateral negotiations constrain the set of potential agreements.

Second, a web of bilateral trade agreements will do far less to promote efficient global integration than comparable regional or multilateral treaties. In today’s economy, bilateral relationships do not capture how international trade works in practice. Factories do not simply produce at home and export final goods to a foreign country; rather, firms participate in global value chains, where stages of production are divided across multiple countries.

Since preferential trade agreements include rules-of-origin requirements that limit tariff concessions to goods substantially produced within treaty members—in order to avoid the problem of transshipment—bilateral deals are often of little help to global value chains, as inputs to production are imported from non-treaty members.

Moreover, trade agreements are important not only for lowering tariffs but also for helping  harmonize standards and regulations to ease international commerce; negotiating such standard setting at a bilateral, rather than regional or multilateral, level is much less efficient. Firms will find it costly and confusing to keep track of many overlapping sets of trade regulations negotiated under different agreements, which could be at odds with each other. A series of bilateral deals will substantially fragment international trade governance, leaving a hodgepodge of incomplete and incoherent rules ill-designed for the 21st century.

Third, and perhaps most dangerously for developing countries, Trump’s approach to bilateralism could tilt the international trade system in worrisome directions. Potential trade partners must ask themselves if launching bilateral negotiations with the U.S. will ultimately contribute to undermining the broader open trade system. Academics and policymakers have long debated whether preferential trade agreements were stepping-stones or stumbling blocks to progress on multilateral trade liberalization. In this instance, it seems clear that Trump does not view bilateral trade agreements as a means to buttress overall support for an open stable economic order, but rather as an effort to carve up the spoils of a global economy.

Abandoning regional and multilateral deals for a bilateral worldview could institutionalize Trump’s mercantilist approach to the international trade system, in which countries are locked in zero-sum competition to win market shares, rather than cooperating to improve economic efficiency. Over the long term, the risk is that the rules, norms, and laws that govern  trade relations will erode, along with the effectiveness and legitimacy of the World Trade Organization. For all the valid concerns and complaints developing countries may have about the WTO, they are unlikely to fare better under a less legalized, more power-based mercantilist trading system.

If Trump insists that his administration will only participate in bilateral trade negotiations, how should potential treaty partners respond? Governments will need to weigh the benefits of preferential access to the U.S. market versus the potential risks described above.

Given that the U.S. is already a relatively open economy, the former may be modest, while the latter could be severe. Countries seeking to promote economic liberalization may thus want to think twice about initiating bilateral deals under Trump’s terms.

During an era of rising protectionism, the core priority for countries reliant on the global economy should be the preservation of the basic open structure of the international trade regime. This goal is more likely to be achieved at a regional or multilateral level.

Read related news articles

Fact sheet: The President’s trade agenda and annual report

On March 1, 2019, the United States Trade Representative released President Trump’s 2019 Trade Policy Agenda and Annual Report, outlining how the Administration’s trade policies are benefitting American workers, contributing to the strongest U.S. economy in decades, and rebalancing America’s trade relationships and the global economy. In just two years, the Administration has already made significant progress in implementing its trade...

01 March 2019

'Trump’s Africa surprise'

Africa has generally ranked near the bottom of US foreign policy priorities. Historically, two-term presidents have waited until their second term to establish their legacies on the continent, and many one-term presidents have neglected it altogether. US President Donald J. Trump has surprised many by bucking this trend.  In December, US National Security Advisor John Bolton unveiled a formal strategy for...

04 February 2019

The Trump administration’s Africa strategy: Primacy or partnership?

Last week, the Trump administration launched an Africa policy that seeks both primacy and partnership on the continent. The administration’s efforts at partnership, especially as it relates to promoting U.S. business on the continent, are likely to be far more lasting and consequential. Ambassador John Bolton set the tone for the administration in a speech where he challenged African governments to choose the United States over...

20 December 2018

Advisor Ambassador John Bolton on the the Trump administration’s new Africa strategy

As delivered on December 13, 2018. Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. Well, Kim, thanks very much, and thanks to you and Kay for inviting me here. I’m delighted again to be here at the Heritage, an institution that really has contributed so much to the public policy debate for many decades now in the United States. And I’m particularly pleased to be here to unveil the Trump administration’s new Africa Strategy, which the President...

13 December 2018

President Trump’s Africa strategy advances prosperity, security, and stability [incl. Factsheet]

Remarks by National Security Advisor Ambassador John R. Bolton on the Trump Administration’s New Africa Strategy I’m delighted again to be here at the Heritage, an institution that really has contributed so much to the public policy debate for many decades now in the United States. And I’m particularly pleased to be here to unveil the Trump administration’s new Africa Strategy, which the President approved yesterday, and which the...

13 December 2018

'Protecting South Africa from US anti-trade action'

South Africa may well be a “non-combatant” and an “innocent bystander” in the economic warfare which US President Donald Trump has launched against America’s major economic rivals, as trade and industry minister Rob Davies has frequently complained.  But it can and should act at least to mitigate the fallout from the gathering global contest, which now also involves Iran.    Six months ago Davies first complained...

20 September 2018

Kenya: Foreign Affairs Secretary meets ambassadors in the US ahead of Kenyatta-Trump meeting

Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary Monica Juma is already in the United States ahead of a scheduled visit to the White House by President Uhuru Kenyatta on Monday. Upon her arrival at the Dulles International Airport on Wednesday, the CS held talks with 28 African resident ambassadors on trade cooperation with the US post-African Growth and Opportunity Act framework (AGOA). She also engaged the ambassadors on the African Continental Free...

24 August 2018

'Trump’s trade action may benefit Africa'

Opinion Piece: The Donald Trump presidency is fast changing almost everything about the US’s role in the world and how the world is managed. No one seems to be spared from its ruthless pursuit of narrow nationalist interests. The recent decision to suspend Rwanda’s right to export duty-free to the US under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (Agoa) is meant to stop Rwanda from increasing tariffs imposed on used clothing and footwear...

05 August 2018

'Trump’s Africa policy is a continuation of Clinton’s, Bush’s, and Obama’s'

President Trump’s Africa policy appears to be off to a bad start. First, there was the unfortunate leak of a remark made privately to a group of U.S. senators in February in which the President referred to African nations as “shithole countries.” Secondly, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s official goodwill visit to several African countries in March was spoiled by the fact that he had to cut his visit short by one day...

23 April 2018

President Trump updates trade preference program eligibility for Rwanda

The President determined today the eligibility of Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda for trade preference benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). In response to a petition filed by the U.S. used clothing industry in March 2017, the Administration initiated an out-of-cycle review of Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda’s AGOA eligibility regarding their decisions to phase in a ban on imports of used clothing and footwear.  The...

29 March 2018

Presidential proclamation on adjusting imports of steel into the United States

1. On January 11, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) transmitted to me a report on his investigation into the effect of imports of steel mill articles (steel articles) on the national security of the United States under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862). 2. The Secretary found and advised me of his opinion that steel articles are being imported into the United States in such quantities and...

08 March 2018

You are here: Home/News/Article/What will Trump’s embrace of bilateralism mean for America’s trade partners?