"Free Trade is about freedom," said Mr Robert Zoellick, the incoming US trade representative. But does he mean freedom for the US to conduct trade deals bilaterally? Now that President Bush has been installed in office, the question is at the heart of concerns outside the US about how his administration will cope with global trade disputes, and whether a US recession would lead to a more protectionist US.
Trade is the main issue of contention between the US and the EU. The old "beef and bananas" rows inherited by the Bush team, and some more recent ones over US protectionist measures, are so serious that if mishandled, economists say they could precipitate a breakdown in global trade diplomacy.
During the Clinton administration, the US frequently clashed with the EU over the ban by Brussels on hormone-treated beef and its restrictions on banana imports. It has imposed $308m annually in retaliatory tariffs on European exports, with the sanction of the World Trade Organisation.
Washington also objects to aid granted by Germany, France, Britain, and Spain for the development of Airbus Industrie's A380 super-jumbo that will compete with Boeing's 747.
On the other hand, the WTO has twice ruled that a $4 billion-a-year tax break given to US exporters, through sham trading companies in Caribbean tax havens, is an illegal subsidy, and the EU has sought to impose retaliatory tariffs. This could be the most dangerous dispute of all.
Europe is also contesting 16 steel-dumping cases against the US which has been found guilty of protectionism by a WTO court, and along with Japan the EU is challenging as a violation of WTO rules, a decision by the US Congress last year to grant payments of anti-dumping duties to affected US industries.
There are disputes too over proposed EU aircraft noiseabatement regulations and US foreign sales corporations that provide a tax shelter for American exporters.
In Washington the EU is frequently portrayed as the villain in trade disputes, as highlighted by the recent reported comment of Mr Gerry O'Driscoll, an economist close to Bush. "A trade war is definitely a possibility," he said.
"The Europeans keep tweaking America's nose on trade and, in the end, they're going to get a reaction."
The US-EU trade disputes will be stacked up on the in tray of Mr Zoellick's desk after his expected confirmation next week. If settlement is not reached and both sides resort to retaliation, much will be at stake, according to Mr Roy Denman, a former representative of the EU in Washington.
Annual trade in goods and services is approaching half a trillion dollars between the two economic superpowers, which he points out account for almost half the world's exports. The appointment of Mr Zoellick as trade representative has gone some way to allay pre-inauguration fears in Europe of an EU-US trade war or the emergence of an isolationist US.
A forceful advocate of open international trade, he gets on well with Mr Pascal Lamy, his opposite number in the European Commission. Importantly for his prestige in foreign negotiations, he will hold cabinet rank and have access to Vice President Dick Cheney, the most powerful official in the Bush administration.
Mr Lamay has acknowledged his friendship with Mr Zoellick, a Harvard educated lawyer with whom he worked on trade issues during the 1987-91 Bush administration, though he added: "We need to see what the policy line is."