For all their clumsiness, recent Bush administration forays overseas on behalf of U.S. industries-including petroleum-were not all bad. They were, after all, forays into the world on behalf of U.S. business.
Invoking jobs and trade imbalances, President Bush pushed free trade in Asia and sales of U.S. autos in Japan. He won a few concessions from his indulgent hosts in Tokyo and polite doubts from auto executives in his entourage. The executives' problem, after all, isn't low sales of U.S. cars in Japan; it's high sales of Japanese cars in the U.S.
MIDDLE EAST TRIP
While Bush and his group were returning from Asia, Deputy Energy Sec. Henson Moore was trying to boost U.S. commercial prospects in the Middle East. In the process, he angered the American producing industry by seeming to confirm in Saudi Arabia that Riyadh and Washington have tacitly agreed to swap cheap oil for military protection.
Moore's comment cannot be laughed off. In conjunction with Bush's statements of concern about jobs and trade imbalances, it raises some troubling questions.
If jobs are such a priority in this administration, why must oil and gas drilling and other job-creating activities so often yield to environmental caprice? If international competitiveness is so vital a concern, why did this administration accept a huge tax increase and the costly environmental overkill built into the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990? If trade balances are so important, how can this administration let federal land lock-ups and tax penalties choke oil and gas drilling, discourage domestic production, and thus favor imported oil, whatever the cost?
Moore reported concerns of U.S. business officials about competitive problems resulting from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. His message was cynically dismissed in the U.S. as a complaint that Americans can't compete abroad without paying bribes. It is all too true that bribes are an essential element of commerce in some places. It is also true that people in some places don't conduct business without first establishing personal relationships, often betokened by gifts-bribes, to the cynics.
Moore's comments should remind Americans that they hurt themselves when they tried, through the corrupt practices act, to legislate their culture and ethical visions into international trade. It's not the fault of non-U.S. governments that companies based in the U.S., for fear of criminal penalty, lose business because they can't engage in customs acceptable everywhere else. Americans did it to themselves, just as Americans do it to themselves when they sacrifice jobs and trade to ruthless environmentalism.
Moore learned something else in the Middle East. State-owned companies there want to do business with U.S. firms. But they're uncomfortable dealing with private companies alone. They want a demonstration of Government support that U.S. officials have been loathe to make-until now.
WELCOME SUPPORT
All else aside, Bush in Asia and Moore in the Middle East did show welcome support for U.S. companies. At least temporarily, they abandoned the adversary stance U.S. politicians typically adopt in relation to business. They were two top U.S. officials promoting companies instead of scolding them. What a contrast to the official antagonism that too often in the past has steered the U.S. into exclusionary ethics laws, environmental gridlock, and antiinvestment taxes-and shoved Americans out of their jobs.
The Bush and Moore trips at least signaled change in U.S. officialdom's attitude toward business. Is it real? The world won't know unless the administration follows the road show abroad with action at home.
Copyright 1992 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
