A blanket ban on GMO crops because domestic agriculture can not compete against them (cost, aesthetics, lack of technology, whatever) would be protectionist.  A blanket ban for safety and health reasons would not (although safety and health a often trotted out to mask protectionism).  Either way, simply labeling it "agricultural policy" does not make a distinction.  Much (most?) agricultural policy is protectionist.

More to the point, I didn't say what you say I said.  If a country blocks another from obtaining capital from within its jurisdiction so that it can preserve that capital for domestic use, how is that not protectionist?