After years of turning the other cheek, the office of the U.S. Trade Representative finally announced last week it was filing complaints in the World Trade Organization against China for shortcomings in its protection of intellectual property. The relative absence of intellectual property protection is neither new in China nor unique to that country. A similar complaint could just as easily have been filed against China at any time in the past decade, or against dozens of other countries today.

Recent headlines ominously report that China is surpassing America as the global leader in exports. Based on recent reports, one might assume that the American trade sector is in disarray. That would be the wrong interpretation.

In 2006, U.S. merchandise exports grew by 10.5%, more than twice the 3.4% growth rate of GDP, and more than the world export growth rate of 8% — hardly signs of weakness. China’s exports grew by 22%, more than double its 10.7% GDP growth rate. In recent years, the international trade sector for both America and China grew faster than the remainder of their economies, and this trend may continue for several more years.

Despite the rapid growth of merchandise exports, America’s global strength lies in finance, services, and intellectual property, none of which figures prominently or at all in merchandise exports. Nowhere is the dominance of American economic power more evident, nor more vulnerable, than in intellectual property.

Intellectual property has predictable protection in perhaps two dozen or three dozen countries around the world, but in other countries intellectual property laws are unenforceable curiosities. Even in countries that respect intellectual property, legal standards and procedures vary substantially. NTP and RIM, Verizon and Vonage, and Qualcomm and Broadcom have all engaged in bitter patent litigation in American courts that have threatened the very survival of one of the disputing companies. Europe has recently used its antitrust authority to probe the intellectual property practices of such American companies as Microsoft, Intel, and Apple.

Although there are bitter complaints about governmental practices in Europe, more American businesses complain about the many countries that do not take intellectual property seriously at all. The U.S. Trade Representative Office maintains records of the many complaints about the enforceable intellectual property laws abroad. The past several administrations publicly anguished but rarely sought legal remedies.

Inaction reflected several factors: the false perception that intellectual property is not as important as other economic interests; the perceived absence of meaningful tools to force other countries to take intellectual property seriously, and a fear of harming delicate relations with countries that do not enforce intellectual property laws.

Although America preaches and often practices the virtues of free trade, the WTO has paradoxically become the primary venue for other countries to complain about America’s trade shortcomings. For example, Antigua and Barbuda have disputed, with some success, the legality of U.S. laws for online gambling not in American courts but at the WTO. Any detached review of WTO adjudications suggests a tendency for obscure issues where it might have some influence rather than for major trade issues where it might have little effect.

Intellectual property is one of those major trade issues. WTO members are supposed to maintain certain open-market standards, including for intellectual property. Many countries, including China, fall short, but whether WTO actions can result in widespread protection of American intellectual property remains to be seen.

Recent visitors to Beijing found little legitimate intellectual property for sale. But China is far more complicated than a simple intellectual property scofflaw. In the past two years, China has become one of the most active sources of new patents around the world. At least for some types of patents, China sees its future in stronger rather than weaker intellectual property.

Ultimately, we Americans see our future in both greater international trade and stronger intellectual property protection. Our economy cannot grow to its potential without more international trade and clearer intellectual property protection. The WTO is a good place to start looking for better intellectual property protection, but it is not likely to find a correct solution on its own. Our government must also look for other means to clarify and strengthen intellectual property.

A former FCC commissioner, Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is president of Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises. He is organizing the seminar series at the Hudson Institute. He can be reached at hfr@furchtgott-roth.com.