Thread by @HawleyMO

THREAD/ Couple thoughts on these well taken points. First sentence below glosses over important tensions. Opening overseas markets/liberalizing trade on one hand & preserving peace / national security on the other are related but distinct goals

And my claim has been that in important respects, Bretton Woods, GATT placed the first in service to the second. Trade was meant to serve the end goals of national economic strength & domestic stability among member states

This is why GATT left such large areas of economy & industry untouched, and allowed nations such wide latitude in domestic regulation. It was never trade liberalizing or integration just for the sake of integration

Uruguay Round marks significant departure. Industries & sectors formerly outside GATT rules now brought in. And the largely advisory dispute resolution process of GATT replaced w/ binding WTO process, complete w/ appellate body able to rely on its own decisions as precedent

Global economic integration now amped up and pursued for its own sake. Nat security, domestic needs, & liberalizing agenda diverge. Consequences for USA not so good. This system facilitated the “China shock,” which has had major security implications as well as economic ones

Now we need to bring our domestic needs (centered on workers), our national security needs & our trade / economic agenda back together. Will require major reform