I’m generally a fan of Charlene Barshefsky, who used to be US Trade Rep under President Clinton (when I first came to Beijing). I’ve also heard her speak at conferences since the ’90s, read her columns, etc. No ideological or political differences with her, so the following relates solely to the content of one particular column.

Yesterday’s Washington Post column, which I think was ostensibly one of the many free trade pieces being floated out there by US government and business types, was pretty weak stuff. If you’re going to argue why protectionism is a bad thing, you need to address some of the reasons why some folks call for protectionist measures. Trade dialogue has changed over the years, particularly since Seattle ‘99 but also in more recent times as multilateral talks have bogged down and the economy has fallen over a cliff. Folks out there mistrust trade in a big way, so you really gotta talk a good game these days.

To be fair, Barshefsky’s column was more about laying out an agenda for expanding free trade agreements under an Obama presidency than it was a vanilla piece on the benefits of free trade. In my mind, however, if you lay out such an ambitious trade agenda for a Democratic presidency without throwing a bone to environmental and labor concerns, you’re kinda wasting your breath.

With respect to Asia (and China) in particular, here’s the key passage:

[U.S. policies] should push a revitalized Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum toward Pacific integration with the United States as a full partner rather than a marginal player. Robust engagement with China is also vital, with a sharpened emphasis on macroeconomic policy (including exchange rates), energy, climate change, nonproliferation and rogue states.

No arguments there, but this is not exactly exciting stuff. A revitalized APEC? Not only is that a very old suggestion that only Fred Bergsten would love, but those suggestions for China dialogue could have been compiled from a China Daily article.

Barshefsky appears to still be at WilmerHale which, despite some hiccups with its Beijing office, must still have some good business development resources from which she can draw upon. As a senior partner, she may not have a great deal of time to pore over drafts of these Op/Eds. My advice: next time, find a trade associate at HQ who can put together something a bit more exciting.