By all means, G-8 leaders, let’s “reconfirm our commitment to keep markets open and free and to reject protectionism of any kind.” And good going in expressing your support for a “rapid, ambitious, balanced, and comprehensive conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda” by 2010. And let’s not downplay, in these uncertain times, the value of publicly emphasizing the importance of international trade to world economic growth and stability.

Meanwhile, let us also remember that empty high profile declarations are just that—empty. These statements will not sua sponte halt the 10 percent forecasted contraction in 2009 of the volume of goods and services traded worldwide—revised from the previous 9 percent forecasted by the World Trade Organization—or revive the ailing Doha Round talks. This G-8 “Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future” Declaration merely allows those countries making up over 58 percent of world GDP to grandstand on trade while allowing subversions of the international trading system to quietly occur at home.

In reality, protectionism has been on a sharp rise. Tasked by the G-8 to monitor the world trading system, the WTO issued its first report on the economic crisis and trade-related developments in March 2009. Another quarterly report is slated to be released imminently. Leaks regarding the latest July WTO report indicate that the WTO has recorded more than 80 trade-restricting measures undertaken by 24 countries and the European Union during the past three months. The July WTO report, just like the previous March report, has apparently identified that WTO members are also enacting policies to protect domestic industries through WTO-consistent means such as instituting heightened numbers of trade remedy actions and/or raising tariffs from lower applied rates to higher bound rates.

WTO members are enacting policies to protect domestic industries through WTO-consistent means such as instituting heightened numbers of trade remedy actions.

The United States has been just as—if not more—guilty as many of its G-8 counterparts in employing protectionist measures. One need only recall that the February 2009 stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), included the “Buy American” provision, which requires U.S. companies receiving federal funds to purchase only U.S.-made materials and equipment. While “Buy American” includes language that it should be “applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements,” it is difficult to understand how that works in reality. We have only begun to see the provision’s destructive effects to global supply chains and U.S. jobs.

Also included in ARRA was the defunding of the pilot program, agreed to under NAFTA, to allow Mexican trucks to transport goods into the United States. Mexico has retaliated by raising tariffs on targeted U.S. products. ARRA also defunded the inspection of Chinese poultry imports into the United States, which recently spurred China to file a WTO complaint against this de facto import ban.

ARRA does not appear to have been the last of it. The climate and energy legislation which recently passed the House includes a “border adjustment” provision that requires the president to impose tariffs on goods from countries that do not take appropriate action against climate change. President Obama has expressed that he does not support this provision. Nevertheless, the political tumble that will ensue over the climate legislation may land the provision in the final bill and into law.

In addition to the climate bill and ARRA, we have see the rapid rise in trade remedy cases of late, as well as billions of dollars in subsidies doled out to our financial and auto companies.

The president has yet to take a definitive stand on the direction of his administration’s trade policy in the face of a Congress openly hostile to trade.

With anti-trade mood music piping through Washington, it is difficult to see how President Obama will be able to uphold his G-8 commitments on international trade. “Fast track” or trade promotion authority for the president, critical to the completion of any trade deal, does not appear to be on the horizon. On an even more basic level, the president has yet to take a definitive stand on the direction of his administration’s trade policy in the face of a Congress openly hostile to trade.

World leaders can make grand statements at summits with no intention of following through on their promises. In this case, we understand the G-8 leaders’ priorities when international trade commitments are buried on page 11 of a 40-page declaration. Let’s hope the world’s economic giants do not fall asleep by the time they reach page 10. Responsible leadership for a sustainable future, indeed.

Neena Shenai is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

FURTHER READING: Shenai also wrote “The Importance of Free Trade.” Philip I. Levy and Michael O. Moore argue in “Driving Toward a Trade War” that politicians are ignoring the trade implications of the auto bailout, even for the car companies themselves.