As unemployment rises in many countries in the wake of an economic slump and trade contraction that are much sharper than expected, will governments be able to resist pressure to protect their own economies and people from foreign competition? If not, how much state action can occur to block imports and promote exports without causing a protectionist crisis that would retard global recovery?

When millions of people lose jobs they want to keep or cannot find work, it crushes self-help, dignity and hope. The consequences can include social unrest and political instability.

Across the Asia-Pacific region, the Americas and Europe, governments are trying to find ways to cushion the downturn, minimise job losses and revive economic growth as quickly as possible.

Australia boosted its effort on Saturday when the Government unveiled a $4billion stimulus plan for the building industry, raising to around $40billion its spending to combat the effects of the global economic crisis.

Many other governments are coming up with stimulus packages and other emergency action. But some of these measures may be contradictory.

The chief executive of Britain's Tesco supermarket chain, Sir Terry Leahy, observed the other day there was a danger that, because of financial market strains, governments would ''lose faith in competition and seek to extend the regulation that they've had to use in the financial sector as a shortcut to a solution.''

In response to the 1929 financial crisis, Congress in Washington raised US tariffs to their highest level in history. Within a year, more than two dozen US trading partners had retaliated by restricting American imports. These tit-for-tat reprisals poisoned international relations and, in the view of some historians, contributed to the outbreak of World War II.

In the current economic crisis, which is shaping up to be the worst since the Depression, governments have sought to heed the lessons of the pre-War years and work together to coordinate policy responses. They made a promising start in mid-November when leaders of the Group of 20 advanced and emerging economies met in Washington.

Among the most important things they agreed to do was reject protectionism and not turn inward in times of financial uncertainty.

They pledged that during the next 12 months they would not raise new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services. Nor would they impose new export restrictions, or implement measures to stimulate exports that were inconsistent with World Trade Organisation rules.

Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that many countries are ignoring the terms of this deal or finding ways to skirt around it. Prominent among the backsliders are governments that signed the G-20 pledge or an almost identical undertaking agreed shortly afterwards by leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

An outright tariff war may not be looming. But to judge from the increasing volume of complaints, creeping protectionism certainly is.

Its features include selective tariff increases, currency depreciations to make exports cheaper and imports more expensive, export subsidies of various kinds, ''buy or employ local'' provisions, and anti-dumping measures that enable producers in one country to get temporary tariffs imposed against trade partners accused of selling goods below cost.

Last week, Malaysia banned the hiring of foreign workers in factories, stores and restaurants to protect its citizens from mass unemployment. The Government also ordered companies to lay off foreign employees first if they had to cut staff. More than three million legal and illegal foreign workers, mainly from Indonesia and the Philippines, will be affected.

Meanwhile, Indonesia rejected claims that it imposed non-tariff trade barriers by restricting imports of major goods to only five ports since December. It also rejected claims by other countries that recent labelling regulations were intended to curb food imports. Malaysia, Japanese, US and European embassy officials questioned whether such actions were compatible with Indonesia's WTO membership.

More ominously, given the scale and sensitivity of China-US bilateral trade, was an accusation on Thursday by President Barack Obama 's choice for Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, that China was ''manipulating'' its currency for trade advantage, despite the fact it has appreciated by about 20 per cent against the dollar since 2005. Analysts in Asia have recently been reporting signs that export-reliant economies in the region are encouraging a decline in their currencies to boost collapsing exports.

The Obama Administration has yet to unveil its trade policy. But it is likely to be a significantly less liberal approach than that of the Bush administration during the past eight years. Fair trade, not free trade, may become the mantra of the world's biggest market.

Democrats in Congress and their allies in the unions and the steel, textile and vehicle industries are pushing to include strong ''Buy America'' provisions in the planned giant US stimulus program. Such provisions would limit spending to firms in the US. European officials are already objecting.

In the past few years, the big four traders China, the European Union, Japan and the US have become embroiled in anti-dumping disputes and such cases seem set to multiply as the economic slump deepens. According to the latest WTO survey, 16 countries launched 85 new anti-dumping cases in the first half of last year, compared with 61 investigations in the same period of 2007. Almost half the complaints were against China.

Earlier this month, China hit back when the WTO agreed to rule on a dispute launched by China over US anti-dumping curbs on imports of Chinese steel pipes, tyres and woven sacks. It is the first case that China has referred to a dispute panel on its own initiative since it joined the WTO in 2001.

However, the important thing to note about nearly all these trade-related disputes is that although they may be acrimonious, they are still subject either to negotiation among governments or to the dispute settlement mechanisms of the WTO. That is a hopeful sign trade tensions can continue to be managed and kept at a tolerable level.

Last week, ASEAN's secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan called on South-East Asian states to open their markets, arguing that regional economic integration was the best antidote to the crisis.

On Saturday, trade ministers from about 20 countries will meet on the sidelines of the annual Davos forum to try once more to find a basis for reopening the long-running Doha round of international negotiations under the WTO to liberalise trade. The G-20 leaders are also due to meet again in London in April to review progress in restoring global growth and implementing financial reforms.

Keeping protectionism at bay will be difficult. But governments know that if they fail, it will jeopardise cooperation in other critical areas and all will suffer.