Protectionism.com

Web and software guru Bill Gates once said, "The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow." Indeed, none could or would dispute the fact that the Internet has created cross-cutting channels of communication, exchange, and activity that today encircle the entire globe. Arguably, the online revolution was one of the fundamental drivers of the current peak in globalization, and it continues to welcome more and more individuals into global society. Regardless of the minutiae, the Internet has helped to bring jobs, provide information, and enrich the lives of all its users. All told, this crucial development cannot possibly be more detrimental than it is beneficial. 

Unfortunately, countries like Iran, North Korea, China, and Saudi Arabia don't see things this way. While trolling through the recent articles on the LA Times page yesterday, I noticed one entitled "Google, Gmail Blocked as Iran Pushes 'National Internet.'" Essentially, Iran has denied its citizens access to Google and Gmail, continuing its trend of ruling web use with an autocratic iron fist. Many Western sites, such as YouTube, Facebook, and Google, are seen as "espionage tools" and are said to contain content impermissible under Shari'a Law. Some calls have even been made (largely within the government) to launch Iran's own "national Internet," cut off completely from the global web, and contained and controlled tightly within Iranian borders. Similar actions and localizations are supported in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and numerous other countries. In forceful efforts to monitor web traffic--especially to identify political dissenters or filter content from foreign sources--these states continue to move toward "big brother" models of Internet regulation. Although none of these would ultimately construct its own Internet, Greece and Norway have already advanced legislation that would require data generated within the country to be stored on servers located in the country. Such localization moves push back against the recent cloud computing revolution, discouraging foreign firms from conducting business within their borders.

So, what does international tech policy have to do with the international political economy? Trade barriers and protectionism. Though these certainly don't come to mind when we think of regimes choking off international trade with government-imposed tariffs, quotas, and regulatory barriers, moves to control the Internet are every bit as important. Largely imposed for the purposes of national defense or protection of jobs--two of the pro-protectionist arguments Coughlin outlines--these restrictions can be extremely detrimental to international trade. For instance, if the more heavy-handed policies are implemented, such as the establishment of a true "national Internet," that particular country would be cut off from an inestimably large portion of all international trade. Because so much business, research, and communication is done online today, such a creation would function like a tariff on steroids. Essentially, what some Iranian officials are calling for is a policy that would send them back to the Stone Age, and, without a doubt, destroy the country's general wealth and standard of living.

Even in a less-extreme case, countries with top-down web regulations might block some sites completely (e.g. Facebook in Southeast Asia), censor content of others, or force potential traders to set up shop within their country and comply with their specific regulations. On any and all accounts, these damage domestic ties with the global web community and, most importantly, discourage international trade. While they operate differently from tariffs and quotas, these strict regulations create strong trade barriers that are largely unique to the 21st century. As the Chinas, Russias, and North Koreas of the world attempt to make this "protectionism.com" the norm, one can only hope that few others will follow suit.

As Coughlin mentions at the end of his piece, "The costs of protectionist trade policies far exceed the benefits. The losses suffered by consumers exceed the gains reaped by domestic producers and government...Not only are there inefficiencies associated with excessive domestic production and restricted consumption, but there are costs associated with the enforcement of the protectionist legislation and attempts to influence trade policy." If you frame Coughlin's points in terms of Internet protectionist policies, keeping in mind their highly detrimental effects on free trade, these points ring especially true. When countries like Iran and China block off key sites, closely monitor web traffic, and consider establishing a "national Internet," nobody wins. These policies, whose intrusion on basic freedoms is another point entirely, cause both parties to ultimately lose out. Domestic consumers are forbidden from purchasing goods online (or even forbidden from finding them), foreign producers must deal with numerous restrictions, and neither information nor wealth is allowed to flow.

At the end of the day, countries with such autocratic, "big-brother" web policies shield their citizens from the rest of the world's activity, and consequently, forfeit free trade in the name of government surveillance. Indeed, the Internet may be the town square for the global village of tomorrow, but their corner of the marketplace will languish in disrepair.