AN EXPEDIENT MORALITY FOR BUSINESS AND A SPECIOUS ECONOMIC ARGUMENT
The Wall Street Journal last week (June26 and 27) carried a paid advertisement by the presidents and CEO's of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce (USCOC) under the title “America's Interests Are at Stake in Russia and Ukraine.” This lobbying effort against sanctions concluded with a summarizing statement, “U.S. workers and industries pay the cost of unilateral economic sanctions that have little hope of increasing the United States' ability to achieve its foreign policy goal.”
Were this an exhortation to our European allies to impose sanctions, the moral high ground would remain undisturbed, but alas, the intent here was to dissuade the President and Treasury from imposing sanctions against Russia because as the advertisement read “It's time to put American jobs and growth first.” Many Americans including the current Administration of President Obama with Secretary Kerry at the foreign policy helm, believe that theUnited Stateshas an obligation to lead. Apparently, not so, is the position of the NAM and the USCOC.
However, describingU.S.involvement inUkraineas “achieving its foreign policy goal” is a perversion of what theU.S.position is or should be. Let's assume the moral component that respects international norms of aiding democracy and preserving territorial integrity, particularly of a country that we solicited to sign on to the Nonproliferation Treaty. We did lend the appearance of affording security in the Budapest memorandum in 1994 even if the memorandum itself lacks guarantee and enforceability language. Ukraine went along with NPT strictly because of the United States. Then again in Bucharest in 2008 we dangled a NATO Membership Action Plan for Ukraine, but we failed to deliver. The reality was and is that the people of Ukraine see us as a friend and often defer to our solicitation because of this friendship.
It is true that morality has fallen victim many times in the past to political expediency and the almighty dollar. Grain trade with theUSSRtook place at the height of the Ukrainian famine in 1932-33, and, in fact, President Roosevelt recognized theUSSRand exchanged diplomatic relations in 1933. Furthermore Western banking operations, including leading U.S. banks, played a significant role in aiding and abetting Nazi's attempts to transfer their wealth for future use while perpetrating the Holocaust. This collaboration with Nazi Germany went beyond caring for the almighty dollar. It was criminal because it was treason.
The argument then is American jobs and growth. That issue has to be considered within a prism of what isAmericaand what it stands for. Components of consumer support for the American manufacturer and American business are not predicated strictly and blindly on patriotism. Removing the factor of American exceptional-ism and leadership which involves issues such as democracy and morality, leaves a very bare economic equation. Many American are inclined to “buy American” because of patriotism and consideration for rules of the economic game appropriate for a country that is the world's leading democracy with exceptional business behavior such as child labor laws, working conditions, non-discrimination laws, equal pay and the like, all commensurate with America's global role.
Unless there are formal sanctions or embargoes imposed, America businesses are free to trade with the worst elements of global society and enrich themselves and those elements. But then don't play the patriotic card. There is no longer a moral high ground. “Buy American” becomes simply a slogan, with no real meaning as our economy becomes , at least to some extent, predicated on deals with thugs and criminals.
Frankly, the argument of “jobs and growth” is not supported by the economic reality of our trade relations with Russia. If we consider the trade data for 2013, U.S. exports to Russia were $11 billion, while imports from Russia were $27 billion. These exports represent less than one percent (.7%) of all U.S. exports. Whom are these sanctions hurting more?
The argument then is not “jobs and growth” both on the moral and economic argument. There is “profit” for some specific corporate leadership, big business, and their shareholders. Do we cater to this small segment of the economic elite? A more sophisticated and honest analysis of the prospective profit margin, taking into account all the economic variables, devoid of morality, America's leadership and respect in the global community, may result in a far less favorable bottom line, because “buying American” becomes not necessarily the “right thing to do.” How do you explain that to the American worker who still believes inAmericaand does not understand why his neighbors are not buying his product.
