Clinton’s Imperialism Hurts U.S.-Japan Trade

By focusing on the U.S. trade deficit with the Japanese, the Business section article addressing a confrontation with Japan over trade barriers (“Collision Course--Confrontation Looms as Japan Persists With Trade Barriers,” Feb. 27) runs the risk of framing the discussion in an emotional manner, thus perhaps jeopardizing proper analysis of the problem. And, as usual, when the problem is misdiagnosed, the solution is invariably the wrong one.

The issue should be one of increasing trade, regardless of deficits. The Japanese already purchase more American goods per capita than per-capita American purchases of Japanese goods. The chart labeled “A Swelling Deficit” that accompanied the article merely reflects a recovering U.S. economy purchasing increasing amounts of Japanese goods at the same time Japan suffers through a recession where all consumer purchases have slowed greatly.

This is further complicated by a presentation that appears to show imports and exports but really shows the “net flow” of import-export transactions. Interestingly, of the 15 categories listed, imposing quotas or price sanctions will almost certainly punish those American consumers least able to afford it, or will punish the service sector with higher costs in an effort to assist the much smaller manufacturing sector.

So far, the Clinton Administration, in recruiting this emotional response from Congress and the public, has behaved very much like the Republican bullies of the ‘50s, ‘60s and early ‘70s they tell us they despise. They have insisted that the Japanese cut taxes--if that is such a good idea, why don’t we do it here?--and have threatened all types of escalating trade sanctions. In short, the response is imperialistic. Like the spoiled baby boomers they are, they demand their Maypo “now!”

Our approach should ignore the deficit and focus on increasing trade in both directions. The current trend between the two countries, the political factors at work in Japan and the world markets are all operating in our favor. Saber rattling is posturing. This is typical of the Clinton Administration’s view that all matters are one of perception and public relations rather than substance. It does not bode well for either trade or national security relations with Japan.

KIP DELLINGER

Los Angeles