海角大神

As President Trump is finding out, trade wars are not easy.

The latest moves in the Trump administration鈥檚 assertive 鈥淎merica first鈥� trade policy point to the strategy鈥檚 inherent risks: A go-it-alone approach that relies heavily on tariffs could easily backfire.

As Mr. Trump sees it, since the US imports so much from other nations, the threat of tougher US policies is a potent weapon against alleged unfair practices by trading partners.聽And in fact, some nations have already dangled concessions that could help US exports.

But the administration鈥檚 gambits also seem to be producing ire and bafflement rather than dialogue and cooperation.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau abruptly canceled a US visit when Vice President Mike Pence laid down a precondition for discussions 鈥� that the North American Free Trade Agreement聽would be renegotiated every few years.

Trump-imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports have become a central point of contention between the US and other G7 nations heading into a meeting later this week. Threatened US tariffs on autos are also roiling relations, notably with big exporter Germany.

And with China, things have shifted from an apparent truce a few weeks ago toward the prospect of escalating tariffs on both sides, after a high-stakes meeting over the weekend between Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He in Beijing bore little apparent fruit.

It may be just a moment of confusion on the path toward what Trump officials say is a needed reset of global trade relations. But聽Trump鈥檚 unpredictable and confrontational approach could also lead to more ominous outcomes, such as growing isolation for the United States 鈥� or a trade war that damages the whole global economy.

鈥淐anada already has a deal now with the European Union. Other countries are moving forward without us. If we just keep throwing sand in the wheels or poking people in the eye, then eventually they're going to stop talking to us about negotiating agreements,鈥� says Kadee Russ, an economist and trade expert at the University of California, Davis.

鈥楥an鈥檛 lose a trade war鈥�

On June 2, Trump doubled down on a past comment that for the US it鈥檚 鈥渆asy to win鈥� a trade war, because America鈥檚 large trade deficit makes other nations more reliant on the US as a market than the US is on them. He tweeted: 鈥淲hen you鈥檙e almost 800 Billion Dollars a year down on Trade, you can鈥檛 lose a Trade War!鈥�

Trump is embarking on a high-stakes gamble that the threat of losing access to America鈥檚 huge market will force other leaders to come to terms with US demands. It鈥檚 powerful economic leverage, but critics say the approach is politically tone-deaf 鈥� both to other leaders鈥� domestic political considerations and the US鈥檚 standing in the world.

For example, in the talks to revamp NAFTA, neither Canada鈥檚 Mr. Trudeau nor Mexican President Enrique Pe帽a Nieto can afford to be seen as capitulating to US demands, trade experts say. And the more the US baldly stretches trade loopholes to push for concessions, the more it looks like a bully.

鈥淚n the short term, you can coerce all sorts of people successfully if you have leverage,鈥� says Stephen Biddle, a defense policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. 鈥淭he trouble is, you burn through good faith real fast when you behave this way.鈥�

Is it worth the risk? It depends partly on how deftly the Trump team can play its hand 鈥嬧�� something that鈥檚 been cast in doubt by a style that has drawn criticism for overreaching demands and lack of clarity on goals. Even supporters say the administration suffers from internal dissension and poor messaging.聽

It also depends, heavily, on one鈥檚 world view: Is the US a winner or a loser in world trade? For many advocates of the current rules-based system, the US is a winner.

In this view, the big culprit for current trade imbalances is China, and the best way to deal with Beijing is by building a coalition of trade allies to demand change. Instead, the administration is attacking those allies for their trade imbalances with the US.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a deeply flawed negotiation strategy,鈥� says Philip Levy, a former trade adviser in the George W. Bush administration who鈥檚 now at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

While 56 percent of Americans think that trade agreements have been generally good for the US, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, a sizable 30 percent disagree with that view.

Travel to the deindustrialized portions of the Midwest or South and it鈥檚 easy to see why. Good-paying manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Income inequality has increased. The US looks like a loser on trade. And thus, some say it is worth the risk to demand wholesale change of the system.

鈥淚t looks like chaos,鈥� says Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen鈥檚 Global Trade Watch. But US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer 鈥渋s one of the most astute trade representatives in decades,鈥� she says. 鈥淭he vision is going at the big structural issues.鈥�

This vision includes taking on China alone, but only because former President Barack Obama鈥檚 attempts to build a coalition of the willing largely came up dry. And it includes restructuring trade rules with trade allies in such a way that American workers鈥� jobs are not sacrificed so that corporations can make bigger profits, Ms. Wallach says, a demand that liberals have been making for years.

A dangerous strategy

But the risks to Trump鈥檚 strategy are evident in the broad criticism his recent moves have drawn, from Republican leaders like Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to the US Chamber of Commerce. On Monday, the influential conservative donor network founded by the Koch brothers announced a campaign to sway voter opinion against a tariff-oriented trade policy.

The mainstream view of trade wars has long been that nobody 鈥渨ins鈥� them. A cycle of tariffs and countermeasures harms all the affected economies by pushing up consumer prices and dampening productivity-enhancing investments.

So far, Trump鈥檚 tariffs on metals and other nations鈥� countermeasures don鈥檛 look like a huge hit to economic growth. Similarly, following through with threatened tariffs on $50 billion in imports from China would lift annual US inflation by about a tenth of a percentage point, and slow economic growth by about the same amount, according to recent estimates by Oxford Economics. But those small hits aren鈥檛 meaningless, and the threatened measures between the US and China alone have recently moved far above the $50 billion mark.

The economic hazards could push all parties to the negotiating table. But there鈥檚 no guarantee that a damaging trade war will be avoided.

鈥淓urope鈥檚 being very careful and measured in their actions,鈥� signaling they want to avoid escalation, says trade economist Ms. Russ. She notes that even as the European Union filed a World Trade Organization complaint challenging US steel tariffs, it also filed a case against China.

But 鈥渟ome of these officials are really mad,鈥� she adds.聽

Politically, the dangers are much greater for Trump and US diplomacy in general. For example, the administration鈥檚 bluster over trade convinced South Korea to cut a deal on limiting steel exports to the US. But so far it hasn鈥檛 forced Canada, Mexico, or China to budge.

If they stand pat and call Trump鈥檚 bluff, then he will have no big trade agreements to show voters 鈥� only tariffs. And his tariffs will impose immediate costs on US consumers, farmers, and various industries as costs rise and other nations retaliate with their own trade sanctions.

Some domestic industries will prosper, of course, but that rebuilding will take time. And Trump鈥檚 rhetoric about trade wars being easy to win isn鈥檛 preparing the public for the short-term pain and economic upheaval that will result.

A tariff 鈥渋s a 2x4 upside a country鈥檚 head,鈥� says Wallach. What鈥檚 important is what happens next. 鈥淭he success will be marked by whether the underlying changes happen. [But] if 鈥榯eam status quo鈥� prevails and the longer-term strategy gets abandoned mid-course ... then they will get into a lot of trouble.鈥�