I received a nice set of questions on this article from a reader in Vietnam:
1. Has the US experienced bans like this (on a product that's cheaper, tastier and presumbaly better-liked by the American consumers) before? What were they and under what circumstances? What was the outcome?
It is done all the time. The United States has a program to protect domestic sugar growers, despite the fact that sugar grown here is three times the world price of sugar. In this case, one cannot tell the difference, since sugar is sugar. (No doubt, some sugar growers will raise "health and safety" questions about foreign sugar, but no one takes those arguments seriously.)
Our government blocks all sorts of imported goods from abroad, despite the fact that consumers here are willing to buy them. Remember that trade barriers, while called "protectionist," actually are done to deprive consumers here of choices they would make in the absence of trade barriers.
2. Do you consider this ban as a non-tariff trade barrier? What are the ways to deal with it?
It definitely is a trade barrier. After my article was posted, some people emailed me to say that the health issues raised by the State of Alabama were legitimate, but I take a dim view of that. I answered one email by telling the writer that following his logic, we should ban sunlight, since excessive sunlight has been proven to cause cancer.
While I can understand the antibiotics issue, my guess is that the dosage to which consumers of basa fish are exposed is so low as not to have any bad health effects at all for people who eat basa.
3. Does this ban prove that the governments of states involved go against the spirit of true level playing field and free trade?
You are absolutely correct. As one who believes that free trade provides for the best international relations (as opposed to war, and especially the current U.S. war in Iraq), I think that this particular ban damages relations between our peoples, but, as you know, it is only one of thousands of protectionist actions taken by western governments against relatively poor countries.
We preach "democracy" and capitalism abroad, but time after time, our government engages in socialistic measures that ultimately make most people worse off in the end.
4. Who would suffer the most as a result of this ban?
First, Vietnamese producers of basa are hurt, and that is obvious. Their only "crime" was to raise fish that people like to eat. Second, American consumers are hurt, or at least consumers in Alabama and Louisiana. They are deprived of the freedom to make choices that they should have been able to make. Third, fish importers are hurt, as many of them have invested money into their businesses only to have some government bureaucrats pull out the rug from under them. Fourth, restaurant owners and people who run fish markets are hurt, since a product that their customers wanted has been pulled from the shelves, which means fewer sales (and lower profits).
Lastly, I believe that domestic catfish producers also are hurt. While this might give them a very small advantage in the short run, in the long run this keeps them from doing things they should be doing in order to have a stronger industry.
For example, what might have been the case had Henry Ford managed to get the government to ban his competitors from making automobiles? Do you think cars would have developed differently? Remember the infamous East German Wartburg, which basically was unchanged from the late 1940s until the time that the Berlin Wall went down? That is what happens when government tries to create conditions via protectionism that do not hold producers accountable for their products.
5. If the ban goes nationwide, who would benefit the most?
I suspect that catfish pond farmers in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana would benefit, although it is hard to know by how much. The small gains those producers made would be dwarfed by the losses experienced elsewhere.
6. If you have a message to Vietnamese basa farmers, what would it be?
I would tell them to continue to develop relations with Sen. John McCain. While I disagree with McCain on many things, he has been a good friend to Vietnam and he has seen through this latest round of naked protectionism disguised as the Alabama and Louisiana governments trying to "protect our health."
7. What additional comments do you have on this?
This has been a shameful action by government officials here. I would like to see us develop better relations with Vietnam. After all, the war ended 30 years ago and it is about time that Americans put all of it behind them. After all, we quickly established relations with the Japanese and Germans right after World War II. However, better relations mean open relations, and that means free trade.
