The panel discussion on Disruption and International Trade included several people such as Bernardino Lion, Phil, and Stephen Harper, the former Prime Minister of Canada. Bernardino acknowledged that the UAE is a global citizen in the economic and global fields. He also asserted that Harper had been a Prime Minister, having won three elections, which required leadership that is pivotal in the academy.
On the other hand, Phil put the focus of the discussion on Disruption and International Trade by asserting that disruption, which occurs in the world order, politics, and technology significantly impacts world trade. Trade, which has a significant role in the UAE’s diversification model, is vital to them and they are global trading partners. Phil then asks Harper if populism gives him greater state intervention in enterprises, given the link between rising populism and protectionism. Harper responded by affirming the common perception that a rise in populism gives an anti-trade perspective. In addition, he said that the recent populism trend started over three years ago due to several reasons, including the fact that Western countries’ trade relationships with developing nations were still not balanced and beneficial to the population. Indeed, many workers lost jobs, and there were significant economic losses despite many American companies making millions of dollars. There was also a resultant resentment in trade outcome since people were not benefitting from trade.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It can be argued about the Chinese situation that globalization and trade globalization after WWII was beneficial to the world. However, the preceding globalization before WW1 was marked by growth in international trade, competitive currency evaluation, and rebuilding of colonialist empires. Harper stated that the Chinese trade policy is evident in the pre-WW1 mindset. The gaps and arrangements by Britain and other countries after WWII were to curb the damaging aspects of pre-WW1 international trade, which needed fixing. Harper further states that the most realistic way to fix this is through the tough approach that the USA took to force China to the table, for which Trump deserves credit despite being unpredictable. Harper asserts that the recent rise in protectionism is from the developed world, although developing countries such as the Philippines and India had protectionism. The latter, despite reforms, have no comprehensive trade agreements with anyone, but their economy is largely protected. Protectionism has, therefore, proved beneficial to emerging economies, but detrimental to developed countries.
Phil then asks Harper if the debate ever takes place in the conservative IDU party. Harper responds that an anti-trade notion alienates one from the IDU ideals and makes them a socialist. He states that the IDU is a proponent of free economy and free markets. Harper further states that according to the IDU, conservative Brexiteers want Brexit to allow them greater freedom to sign trade agreements, while the left still wants EU inclusion. He then responds to Phil’s notion of an economic power shift from the West to the East by stating that IDU was formed to promote democracy and free markets, which will facilitate greater global wealth distribution. Harper notes that the real question should be whether the wealth transfer undermines the system and whether as it shifts to the east or countries that are not democracies, the shift is to a power-based system rather than a rule-based one. He states that a long-term power-based system could be unstable.
Phil then inquires about the links between free trade, religion, and politics, noting that the TPP was disadvantageous to the US against China. Harper responds by saying that the parties in the TPP negotiations had different objectives with the other parties other than Canada seeking trade agreements with the US. Canada, which already had trade agreements with the US, was important to be with them on these issues as well as securing a deal with Japan. The USA aimed to make a rule-based trade agreement to avoid a Chinese constructed system. Both Hillary and Trump did not want the agreement with the latter stating that it was not optimal for the USA. In essence, it was termed as a geopolitical strategy that would disadvantage them in the long run.
Phil then asks about the future of trade deals and whether they should be regional, bilateral, or multilateral. Harper responds by saying Canada’s eggs were in the WTO basket when he got in office, but on realizing that globalization was unlikely, he focused on attainable bilateral agreements. He claims that the most successful agreements would be bilateral, then regional, and lastly, global because the ambition of the rooms would be to meet the least ambitious party’s agenda. In response to Phil’s final question concerning the secrets for a successful great trade agreement, Harper states that one has to know what they are doing and have the backing of businesspeople or key economic players. He asserts that they had a team that was constantly in touch with businesspeople. He gave an example of the 2013 Brussels agreement where they knew every major country and union would give their opinion since it was a big negotiation, and they knew their statements prior to release.
