Revisiting national security in the context of global commerce

In light of the US rejection of the Nippon Steel and US Steel deal, Wolfgang Lehmacher discusses the ongoing erosion of trade agreements.

The erosion of trade agreements, particularly through the invocation of national security exceptions, poses significant challenges to the international economic landscape. The recent rejection of Nippon Steel’s proposed $15bn acquisition of US Steel exemplifies this trend, highlighting the risks associated with broad interpretations of national security that can be used to justify protectionist measures.

National security as a justification for protectionism

Countries are increasingly invoking national security as a rationale for implementing investment and trade restrictions. This practice raises concerns about the potential for arbitrary declarations of products or services as security threats, which can undermine the effectiveness and relevance of existing trade agreements.

Such actions could lead to a fragmented global market characterised by high tariffs, quotas, and other barriers to trade, resulting in negative consequences for consumers and businesses.

Expanding the definition of national security

Historically, national security exceptions in trade agreements were intended to protect core interests during genuine threats. However, the definition of what constitutes a security threat has broadened significantly. Economic competition and hypothetical risks are now regularly cited as justifications for protective measures, which undermines the foundations of international trade agreements that rely on predictability and mutual benefit.

This shift complicates cross-border operations and investment decisions for businesses that have thrived in an open trading environment. The uncertainty surrounding legitimate security concerns creates challenges for the world, as no nation is entirely self-sufficient; reliance on global trade is essential for meeting the needs of citizens and driving economic growth.

Collaboration over protectionism

As nations face complex global issues such as climate change and economic inequality, collaboration becomes increasingly important. Rather than retreating into protectionist policies justified by vague national security claims, governments should work together to address shared challenges.

One effective approach is to establish multilateral trade agreements that emphasize transparency in the application of national security exceptions. Clear guidelines on what constitutes a legitimate security threat can help mitigate arbitrary protectionism while still safeguarding essential national interests. Engaging in dialogue with other countries is crucial for building trust and ensuring that protectionist measures do not become normalised.

The need for clarity

The trajectory of global trade is marked by uncertainty, posing risks not only to international commerce but also to overall geopolitical and economic stability. It is essential to advocate for clearer definitions and guidelines regarding national security in trade agreements. By fostering collaboration, nations can increase resilience and better navigate current turbulent times while addressing their security needs and economic interests effectively.

Source: Splash247.com

We give you energy news and help invest in energy projects too, click here to learn more

Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack