From Brasilia to Brussels to Beijing, every country that produces steel has joined in the chorus of protest. America's imposition of steel tariffs denied its commitment to free trade. The French press described President Bush's decision as an hypocritical posturing and said that the international market was not like the Wild West where everyone could act as they pleased.

Even though they also have their protectionist measures, in this case they have some of reason. Not long ago, Bush said it was wrong for countries to hold out the false promise of protectionism "nothing more than taxes that hurt low- and moderate-income people".

In this case, it seems that the President forgotten his words and has decided that domestic political considerations take priority.

The principal aim of the new tariffs is to raise the price of steel on the American market, and so help domestic producers who cannot compete with lower-priced imports. Much of this competition, the industry alleges, is unfair since many foreign steel companies enjoy government subsidies. But so do our domestic steel companies.

In the United States, in 1959, steel workers earned 15 percent more than the average manufacturing worker; by 1980, that cushion had widened to 84 percent. From 1967 to 1979, hourly employment costs in the steel industry rose at an annual rate of 12.1 percent - while industrial output grew just 2 % a year. This was a comfortable world for steelworkers but a costly one for U.S. consumers.

Steel's campaign for protection failed to keep out foreign competition during the 1970s, '80s, and '90s -thanks to principled politicians who were tough-minded enough to resist the union's pleas for help. As a result, tens of thousands of jobs were lost in the traditional steel-producing areas of the Midwest. According to one study, the number of people employed in the U.S. steel industry has fallen from 600,000 in 1980 to 210,000 now.

The U.S. steel industry finally began to modernize during the 1980's - moving increasingly to non-union "mini-mills" that had much lower production costs. But the old-line steelworkers still wanted protection.

But higher-priced steel has a direct impact on American manufacturers - it jacks up their production costs and makes American products made from steel non-competitive in the international market.. At a time when the American economy is still, at best, only starting to recover from recession, higher prices could choke off demand. That, in turn, would threaten jobs elsewhere in the economy.

But perhaps the most worrying aspect of the U.S. action in increasing steel tarriffs is the risk that it will trigger a round of similar protectionist measures from other countries which echo the "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies of the 1920s that brought the Great Depression.

This assertion has already been challenged by the European Union, which is taking its case to the WTO. The Russians, too, have said steel tariffs could harm bilateral relations (though only Russian imports above current levels will face tariffs and they had also announced in mid-February a plan to file for protection against imports of galvanized sheets from Ukraine and Kazakhstan).

The President and his advisers insist that temporary protection for the steel industry is permitted by the rule of the WTO which allows safeguard measures aimed at giving short-term relief to industries hit by import surges. But the decision to indulge in a bit of protectionism today will eventually require U.S. negotiators to give up something else on its international trade agenda sometime later. The people who will pay for this in the long run aren't so much steel consumers - it's U.S. exporters.

Marķa Graciela Arias is an intern at Accuracy in Media.

For questions or comments, please contact Intern@AIM.org.