The United States remains a leader in the global economy, yet over the past decade, it has taken a sharp turn away from its traditional support of free, rules-based trade. Since 2016, Washington has withdrawn from international trade agreements it once championed, opting for a more unilateral approach and pivoting from many of the obligations and norms it had shaped and insisted others honor to make trade fair, equitable, and mutually beneficial. How did the United States arrive here, and what steps should it take to leverage its strengths in the global trade system moving forward?

APARC visiting scholar Michael Beeman addresses these questions in his new book Walking Out: America’s New Trade Policy in the Asia-Pacific and Beyond (published by APARC, distributed by Stanford University Press). As a former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Japan, Korea, and APEC, Beeman brings an insider’s perspective to the recent transformation of U.S. trade policy. He provides a timely analysis of the forces driving this shift, examines its implications for America’s role in the global economy, and offers prescriptions for a robust U.S. trade policy that still serves American interests while allowing for compromise among competing ones.

Join Dr. Beeman on campus for our book launch event on October 17. Reserve your spot today >

Beeman joined APARC Communications Manager Michael Breger to discuss his new book. Listen to the conversation on our SoundCloud or YouTube channels. You can also download a transcript of the conversation.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our event invitations and scholar updates >

A Departure From the Norm

In Beeman's analysis, the tactic of "walking out" as a means to renegotiate international agreements reflects a fundamental shift in U.S. trade policy, marked by a rejection of established conditions, obligations, and norms that had previously facilitated global trade and reduced conflict. This shift has had significant repercussions, as Washington has increasingly distanced itself from the principles it once championed, such as non-discrimination, transparency, openness, and reciprocity in trade. The change represents more than the inability to agree to a specific trade deal. According to Beeman, it is a rejection of Washington's long-held principles in pursuit of new goals.

Beeman attributes the collapse of the decades-long bipartisan consensus supporting free trade to a domestic political climate, where “the emergence of America’s zero-sum-centered politics [is] the new, defining feature of its political system.” In this new system, trade is viewed not as mutually beneficial but as a competition for limited resources. This transformation began gaining traction during the 2007-2008 financial crisis, which galvanized new political movements, like the Tea Party and the so-called New Right, that simultaneously criticized free trade agreements.

Acknowledging the effects of domestic politics on trade policy, Beeman explores how the current political landscape, marked by extreme division, shapes trade decisions and reflects broader societal tensions. The author draws parallels between historical trade policy and the contemporary environment, noting that just as the 1930s saw dramatic swings in U.S. tariff policies, today’s new political geometry is “forged from extreme new levels of domestic political division [...] On trade, it is a geometry of acute angles and no longer one of curves and tangents.”

This political backdrop has resulted in an increasingly politicized trade policy that hampers efforts to find consensus. Beeman emphasizes that the transformation of U.S. trade policy is not merely a reflection of external pressures but a byproduct of internal political dynamics that redefine the goals and assumptions underpinning U.S. trade strategy.

Trade Policy Tensions
 

Among the many trade agreements that the U.S. has recently abandoned was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). According to Beeman, internal divisions regarding the TPP's stringent rules and demands — especially concerning auto manufacturing — highlighted a rift between America's expectations of its trading partners and its willingness to accept compromise.

Various rules and regulations dictated by the TPP stoked domestic contention and “had scrambled the usual pathways to achieve the vote margins needed for these agreements. [They] also revealed the sharp new tension between what America expected and wanted from others and what it was willing to agree upon and accept for itself.” The Biden administration's decision to abandon its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) trade agreement in late 2023 further illustrated ongoing tensions in U.S. trade policy, underscoring a lack of coherent strategy following the TPP's collapse.

The book explores how the Trump and Biden Administrations have grappled with the contradictions in their trade policies. While Robert Lighthizer, the former trade representative under Trump, embraced a confrontational approach, Beeman criticizes the fallout from these decisions, arguing they often left established commitments unfulfilled and damaged international relationships. But Beeman also maintains that the Biden Administration's attempts to repair and redefine trade relationships have resulted in a series of inconsistent policies, reflecting internal domestic tensions yet to be resolved.

“As a set of social values and domestic priorities in search of a means to express themselves through America’s external trade policies, [the Biden] Administration attempted to explain its approach in ways that often only raised contradictory distinctions.” Once these “became harder to explain and justify, [it] began developing what amounted to a new theory of global trade disorder and dysfunction in an attempt to more convincingly frame its decisions.”

According to Beeman, disruptions from Covid-19 were a “helpful backdrop,” but, he argues, “if set against the vastly more immense challenges of the late 1940s and early 1950s, when America made an intentional policy choice to work with other countries to commit to open, rules-based trade to lead the world out of crisis, the problems of 2020-21 were challenges that policymakers from that time undoubtedly would have preferred.”

Barriers to Progress
 

The current political landscape has made it challenging for Congress to reach a consensus on trade issues. The failure to renew the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which provided tariff relief to developing countries, exemplifies the paralysis in U.S. trade policy. Beeman remarks upon how, “after the bipartisan mainstream that advanced open and freer trade […] was swept away by America’s New Right and progressive Left, their shared interest in adding new and ever more conditions to America’s imports was insufficient to overcome their sharp disagreements over which conditions to add.” For Beeman, the inability to agree on new conditions for trade reflects broader ideological divides that hinder progress.

Ultimately, Beeman warns that America’s zero-sum approach to trade may lead to a cycle of self-inflicted isolation. He argues that this shift is not solely a reaction to China’s rise but represents a deeper ideological rift in American politics. “International trade adds a foreign, or external, dimension to zero-sum thinking that has facilitated a surprising degree of alignment between the New Right and the progressive Left,” he writes, specifically the “zero-sum belief that America is made worse off by freer trade, which benefits ‘them.’” Such an alignment has created an environment where bipartisan support for trade agreements has eroded, complicating efforts to establish a coherent and effective trade policy moving forward.

An essential read for anyone interested in the international political economy of trade and the future of America’s role in the global economy, “Walking Out” highlights the urgent need for the United States to reconcile its domestic divides to reestablish its role in the global economy. The current trajectory, characterized by a rejection of its foundational principles, risks fostering new conflicts with allies and adversaries alike, contradicting the original goals of the international trading system.

When I arrived at Stanford in September 2022, I’d just stepped out of a product manager role at a large government contractor. My career had focused on providing policymakers with the best open-source information possible around a myriad of foreign policy issues. Over the preceding years, that work had become increasingly intertwined with artificial intelligence (AI), not just as a subject of analysis but as a critical tool in the analytic process. In enrolling in the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy (MIP) program, situated in the heart of Silicon Valley, I hoped I could better understand AI and how it would reshape geopolitics. 

My timing was serendipitous. Just as I settled in, OpenAI unveiled ChatGPT, and the world changed. It was a whirlwind period of wild speculation, anxiety, and excitement. To cut through the noise, I sat in on an advanced course on machine learning and enrolled in the Computer Science department’s core course, Programming Abstractions, to build my programming skills. Blending my policy framework development in MIP courses with technical study at Stanford’s renowned Computer Science department was exactly what I hoped Stanford would provide. 

What I didn’t expect, however, was how differently I was starting to think about my future after the program.

The Entrepreneurial Leap

The original plan for MIP was to get smart and then apply what I learned within an established organization, like my former employer or the government. I began to wonder if, rather than providing information to decision-makers as I had previously in my career, I could combine my product management experience and burgeoning CS competency in a different way. Could I attack the same problems I’d been working on for years, but from the bottom up? Could I use technology to empower the broader public to become more resilient to misinformation and polarization?

The approaching summer seemed like the opportunity to test my product ideas and the possibility of starting a business around them. MIP’s summer funding made it feasible to take advantage of that opportunity while still paying my rent. It also added helpful structure to my plan, requiring me to record my hours and find a mentor to oversee my progress.

My former colleague, David, with whom I have a strong relationship built on trust and shared vision, agreed to be my mentor. He had recently launched his own company in a related space and was able to share a wealth of experience and insights.

The Summer of Coding and Discover

Summer came, and I dove headfirst into coding, dedicating countless hours at the corner desk of my Hoskins apartment to building something tangible that embodied my vision. I also began immersing myself in the Bay Area’s tech ecosystem - attending AI seminars, venture capital events, and networking with founders.

The results of those first weeks were encouraging. I prduced a working prototype that used AI to identify misleading information online and, by referencing trusted sources, provide missing context and corrective information to the reader. It was real progress toward a world where we no longer rely on ineffective fact-checking after readers are exposed to misleading information and form their opinions. Instead, AI could help every news reader spot deceptive content in real-time - during the opinion formation process.

Despite my progress, I realized that if I were going to keep up with the pace of the hyper-competitive AI startup field, I would need a partner.

Finding a Co-founder 

With a working prototype of my Critical Reader Google Chrome extension, I felt ready to seek out an experienced partner who could help scale my vision. Y Combinator’s co-founder matching platform was my arena. It was a whirlwind of meetings and ideas, but eventually, I connected with the former CTO of a successful startup, who shared my commitment to revolutionizing digital information sharing.

We hit it off and decided to test our partnership with a 30-day trial. We examined my prototype critically and decided to pivot towards a simpler, more marketable product. In a few weeks, we had a minimum viable product ready and began user testing. As expected, the feedback was a mixture of praise and criticism, but it was energizing to have the critical data we needed to iterate and improve.

Beyond coding, we invested considerable effort into refining a mutual vision and business strategy. We began exploring non-profit frameworks and various hybrid business models that could achieve the scalability of a for-profit enterprise while preserving the principles that motivated us.

Renewed Vision 

In a few short months, my curiosity had evolved into a venture with real users and a business model. I had also changed. The experience developing financial forecasts and strategic plans significantly enhanced my professional toolkit and gave me first-hand experience with the reality of starting a business. 

Now, as I enter my penultimate quarter at Stanford, I am able to develop products and explore partnerships with a newfound clarity of purpose. My summer of entrepreneurship added a new dimension to my MIP experience and has set the stage for what comes after the program ends.

My goal of spending the summer of 2023 working in the Global South came to fruition, courtesy of the Environment for Development - Makerere University Centre (EfD - MaK), the  Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and the Stanford Sustainable Finance Initiative (SFI). Being on the ground in Uganda to work on green finance seemed the right call. I have spent four years in the Global North, primarily in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, working on European Union (EU) international economics issues, which included green finance. One of the biggest challenges I encountered was the conflict of interest between donors and the projects they prioritized and the beneficiaries and the projects they prioritized. In this aspect, disagreements about green financing were especially pronounced.

In my first year at Stanford, I participated in a series of learning, unlearning, and relearning experiences to understand better how to make economic decisions work well for both developed and developing countries. I was excited about a summer fellowship that would allow me to leverage my expertise from the Global North and newly acquired knowledge from Stanford to contribute toward addressing the economic development challenges of the Global South. Fortunately, the EfD - MaK Center in Uganda awarded me a fellowship opportunity, and with the funding of FSI and SFI, I was able to spend 12 weeks working in Uganda. Being in Uganda was not a novel experience for me. I was born and had previously worked there both as a development consultant and as a research assistant on different randomized controlled trial experiments.

Working in Uganda, however, and becoming immersed in the Global South perspective of green finance was new. My duties as a Visiting Fellow at EfD - MaK made the Fellowship an entirely unique and rewarding experience. I conducted policy analysis on green finance, collaborated with stakeholders from the public sector, civil society, private sector, and academia, contributed to high-level policy dialogues, and took part in some of the ongoing projects on energy financing. This work gave me an understanding of the distinctive nature of the energy and climate environment in Uganda. Accomplishing development objectives, such as eliminating poverty and promoting prosperity for all, requires energy sources to be available. Ensuring essential levels of energy supply is also of mutual interest to donors and country beneficiaries.

In Uganda, green finance is particularly important in addressing the energy poverty problem and allowing the country to meet Uganda’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). UBOS- Uganda Bureau of Statistics’ 2018 National Electrification Survey shows that 66% of Ugandans are multidimensional energy poor, measured by access, cooking solutions, and end-use technology. In its NDCs, Uganda has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, most of which are from agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU), by 24.7% before 2030. These commitments call for green financing approaches that promote access to clean and affordable energy for most Ugandans who are currently either underserved or unserved. Climate finance is essential to help vulnerable communities deal with the prevalent consequences of climate change. Uganda now faces a $28.1 billion climate financing gap and has been able to mobilize only $4 billion. Boosting green financing from all players, local or international, public, private, for-profit or not-for-profit, will help the country build climate resilience and adaptability and meet its broader green growth objectives, as specified under the NDCs.

International donors have helped Uganda make some progress towards meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goal - SDG 7 - Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. The National Planning Authority reports that Uganda’s electricity access has increased from 24% in 2018/2019 to 57% in 2021/2022, and its grid reliability from 90% to 98%. However, a lot still needs to be done. Uganda’s biomass usage, primarily for household cooking, is still at 80% despite efforts to reduce it to 50%. Ugandan household emissions are estimated at 30 tons of carbon per year compared to five tons for the United Kingdom.

There are serious issues related to energy affordability. Uganda’s level of income inequality is high, with a Gini Index of 0.427.¹ The Borgen Project reports that Uganda’s richest 10% receive 35.7% of the national wealth. In comparison, the poorest 20% receive only 5.8%. This indicates that a larger share of the population cannot afford clean energy. Even though policy dialogues sponsored by government officials have resulted in progress in reducing electricity costs, electricity remains unaffordable for many economically disadvantaged individuals.

This summer experience taught me that conditions within Uganda are similar to those of many countries of the Global South, particularly sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), that experience energy poverty. International Energy Centre (IEC) research has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic worsened energy poverty. IEC also projects that about 560 million people from SSA will still have no electricity access in 2030. My experience at EfD-Mak taught me that addressing country technical gaps and prioritizing green projects in planning, programming, and budgetary processes could enable countries to bridge the energy gaps.

There is also a need to leverage the private sector, entrepreneurs, and financiers to invest in and contribute to Uganda’s green growth agenda. However, this necessitates that the government implement an enabling business climate to attract local and international players. Coordinated efforts are also essential to combat dependency on biomass, which increases greenhouse gas emissions and poses health risks to the populace. From the policy dialogues I participated in, ministries, departments, and agency officials emphasized the government’s commitment to reducing biomass usage. All players around the table, including the private sector, civil society, and communities themselves, must participate to accomplish biomass reduction.

Image

Spending the summer in Uganda met my expectations for an on the ground experience. It gave me a better understanding of the working environment in a developing country and elevated my grasp of several international development issues. I also acknowledge that countries are rarely the same, making it vital to gain direct exposure to the on the ground reality instead of relying on studies and external generalizations.

By and large, I am very thankful to the EfD Director, Professor Edward Bbaale, for allowing me to work on these issues and for his invaluable mentorship. I also enjoyed working with a team of experts, which included Dr. Peter Babyenda, Mr. Fred Kasalirwe, Mr. Gyavira Ssewankambo, and Ms. Jane Anyango, to mention just a few. Above all, I am thankful to FSI and SFI at Stanford University, whose collaboration with EfD-Mak Uganda made my summer fellowship both a priceless experience and a great opportunity to be home again.

Climate Change is the defining issue of our generation, and we are at a defining moment. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food production, to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, the impacts of climate change are among the greatest threats to national and global security.

Energy accounts for two-thirds of total greenhouse gas, so the energy sector is the central player in efforts to reduce emissions and combat climate change. Thus, as national treasure Bill Nye put it, energy policy is climate policy. Mitigating the effects of climate change rests on the success of energy diplomacy and our ability to craft unprecedented global collaboration. Accordingly, the State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources work is vital not only to our energy security interests but also to realizing our ambitious goals toward a sustainable, low-emissions future.

The Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR) operates at the critical intersection between energy, climate, and U.S. national security and ensures U.S. leadership on global energy issues. ENR leads the Department of State's efforts to develop and execute international energy policy through diplomatic and programmatic engagement that promotes a low-emissions future, energy security for the United States and our allies and partners, and economic prosperity through sustainable, affordable, and reliable energy access.

Image

I worked in the Office of Energy Diplomacy for Europe, Western Hemisphere, and Africa (EWA), which specifically works to advance energy security and decarbonization and leads Department engagement on energy related sanction actions in these regions. EWA seeks to increase bilateral and regional energy diplomacy to support U.S. foreign energy policy, namely the green energy transition. In executing energy diplomacy priorities, EWA emphasizes improving energy market access, enhancing energy security, and promoting decarbonization through clean and renewable energy sources and technologies.

During my internship, I undertook a range of responsibilities that helped me develop a comprehensive understanding of energy diplomacy and its role in shaping global energy dynamics and the U.S.'s role in leading the energy transition. As Critical Minerals (CM) play a vital role in clean energy technologies, much of my work centered on securing and promoting resilient supply chains. Notably, there were key bilateral efforts with Argentinian and Brazilian energy stakeholders on critical mineral supply chains, which required coordination and information sharing on new projects to increase their CM output. As part of my responsibilities, I researched geopolitical and economic factors influencing the region's role in global supply chains and opportunities for growth and increased cooperation. As part of this work, I acquired new insights into mining techniques, production, and applications of critical minerals and broadened my grasp of the global supply chain and the pivotal role these resources play in various industries. Additionally, I gained a new understanding of the potential of new technologies like low nickel-cobalt ion batteries and green hydrogen, particularly their transformative role in advancing the energy transition and achieving sustainable development goals.

Image

I participated in a series of bilateral meetings with foreign counterparts, ranging from embassy officials to cabinet-level ministers. These interactions exposed me to the intricacies of international diplomacy, allowed me to witness the power of dialogue in forging alliances, and deepened my appreciation for the role of energy diplomacy in shaping a more secure and sustainable global energy landscape. Working at a functional bureau, I attended meetings with the Department of Energy, which exposed me to the inner workings of domestic energy policy formulation and implementation. I gained insights into how policy decisions translate into actions and how interagency collaboration contributes to effective energy governance.

My internship experience not only involved drafting important documents but also provided me with a variety of experiences and skills that have significantly contributed to my professional growth. The internship was a rewarding experience that allowed me to contribute to critical projects while deepening my understanding of energy diplomacy and its role on the global stage.

The papers I drafted, the exposure to high-level deliberations, engagement with key stakeholders, and the acquisition of diplomatic and technical skills expand my horizons and equip me to make meaningful contributions that will supplement my studies at Stanford. The knowledge gained during this internship will undoubtedly shape my future endeavors and commitment to advancing global energy security and sustainability.

Despite bureaucracy's (let's be real, sometimes fair) reputation, I was inspired by my department colleagues' bold leadership and tireless efforts. Amid an existential climate crisis and destructive war disrupting energy security, the hard and brilliant work of these public servants has left me optimistic about the future of our world. As global warming worsens, this office continues to shape and execute America's role in leading the global, renewable energy transition.

Image

While it is easy to become jaded and nihilistic working on such harrowing issues, they boldly continue the work necessary to combat climate change by ensuring sustainable, equitable, and reliable energy access for individuals around the world. I am so excited to join their ranks next year when I officially enter the foreign service and continue to meet and work with some of America's best and brightest.