At times, it can feel as if the only certainty with the current administration in Washington, D.C., is uncertainty. Where ever you stand on supporting or not supporting this president, it is hard to argue that he has been a stabilizing force in domestic or global politics. Some of us have feared escalating or new conflicts around the globe.
With the beginnings of a trade war, our farmers will be on the front lines. Uncertainty is already affecting markets worldwide. Farmers are certainly no strangers to uncertainty, from weather to insects to machinery breakdowns, and yes, market instability.
While a trade war is not a boots-on-the-ground campaign, there will be losses and casualties. The Powell Doctrine may not be entirely applicable to this war, but there are some questions in it that may help guide our approach to and support of an ongoing trade war.
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? While the previous administration was accused of approaching problems far too cerebrally, the current leadership appears to prefer a more action-oriented approach to issues. This approach can leave in doubt whether there is an overall strategy being implemented, and whether all possible outcomes have been considered.
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? This president campaigned on and promised wins for the American people. An approach based solely on “winning”, without defining what winning is, may or may not allow for alternate outcomes.
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Again, it is difficult to game this out. The $12 billion aid package proposed for farmers seemed to come as an afterthought, intended as a balm to soothe, after consequences were being felt in the market.
Is the action supported by the American people? Perusing news articles from multiple outlets, support for a trade war, and the aid package, is at best tepid. Reactions from farmers across the country range from doubt to hesitant support, with articles stressing that this is bad for the short-term but the hope is the long-term plan will benefit American farmers.
Do we have broad international support? This may be the only question with a definitive answer: No. And this question may not matter as much to Americans as they decide whether to support this policy decision. But deals by definition require the acquiescence of more than one party. We will not get all that we want in a trade deal. Concessions will have to be made.
In looking at the long-term prospects of a trade war, it may be necessary to add another question: Will future generations still be fighting or paying for this war? A trade war in the 1970s resulted in Montana losing China as a major customer for malting barley. And that market has never returned.
Reader Comments(0)