Policy Implications: Clinton and Obama on International Trade Policy, NAFTA, and SWF’s
By Osman Aziz
ITSSD Intern, Blogmaster of the ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom
Much rhetoric has been exchanged on the campaign trail regarding the status of free trade and the future (or lack thereof) it has in American foreign policy. Both democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been in a perpetual state of flux over the status of NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) and the perceived ills that it has accrued for the people of America. However acidic such criticisms of free trade may have appeared on the cameras, questions abound to the actual positions of each candidate on the undeniable progress that trade liberalization has taken in the world. Given the track record, neither Obama nor Clinton actually appear to be enemies of a free trade paradigm, which begs the question as to why such critical stances need to be taken against free trade agreements that, on the whole, have provided greater benefits than damages.
“In the minds of hard-core opponents of free trade, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have checkered records in the Senate on trade agreements. Both voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement but supported a trade pact with Peru last year, citing the inclusion of labor and environmental provisions that were not part of Nafta. Opponents, however, said crucial provisions in Nafta that led to jobs being shipped overseas were also part of the Peru agreement. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were also among only a dozen Senate Democrats who voted for a trade agreement with Oman in 2006.”[1]
The questions being framed as a position of political pandering is undeniable given the records that both candidates have on trade; but the irrefutable consequences of publicly assailing free trade policies could carry over to other aspects of international trade policy. Recent controversy over the ascendancy of Sovereign Wealth Funds (‘SWFs’) and the apparent lack of “transparency” that they possess has sparked a backlash from Democrats and protectionists alike who point to, without proper knowledge, the inherent “political” interests involved in such funds. Senator Obama’s position on altering the tax code to subsidize businesses that keep jobs in the US also smack of an underlying misunderstanding of economic efficiency and the effect such a position can have on inflating the prices of consumer goods by retaining inefficient employment capacities for higher wages.[2]
The Senators' indirect call for more governmental intervention in the reshaping of NAFTA and the US’ global trade policy seems to reflect a broader ideological agenda. First, it would seem that the candidates are attempting to label ‘trade’ as the cause of what many anticipate will be a US recession. Second, it appears that the Clinton-Obama strategy is to cast more not less governmental intervention in the marketplace as the necessary ‘change’ or ‘solution’ that will bring the US out of its current economic malaise. However, with little to say about the causes and eventual outturn that the current subprime crises harbors with it, protectionism and the scepter of populism may only serve to drive the US economy into further disarray. What appears to underlie these sentiments, are the overlooked benefits that such agreements as NAFTA have really had on the US and the region as a whole.
“While it is politically incorrect to say so, NAFTA has been good for all of North America. By opening the continent to investment and trade, capital has found more efficient uses, with benefits to producers and consumers alike. In NAFTA's first decade after 1993, trade between the U.S. and Mexico multiplied to $232 billion from $81 billion. Trade with Canada has also blossomed, with Canadian exports to the U.S. by surface transport rising 79% in a decade and U.S. exports to Canada increasing 38%. The deal also increased U.S. productivity. U.S. firms found they could be more globally competitive by putting some manufacturing in Mexico or Canada while retaining high-end production in the U.S.” [3]
By virtue of the fact that the same can be said regarding the projected benefits of the US-Peru FTA a year down the road reveals the hidden side that neither Senator is willing to uncover, namely the increase in economic efficiency that is followed by the passing of such free trade agreements. The very fact that increases in real GDP for all three nations member to NAFTA by approximately 50% each is evidence unto itself of the successes it has yielded, adding further distress to either the withdrawal, or the amending of an agreement that has worked so far.[4] Unilateral withdrawal from NAFTA, a trade agreement that has epitomized the inherent benefits of trade liberalization would be a fool hardy move and would send the wrong signal to the rest of the world regarding the US’s stance on international treaties, which up to this point has been maintained by a track record of trust and reciprocity. The fact that much rhetoric over NAFTA was staged in Ohio begs the question as why such sentiments are not being capitalized on in Texas. Given the fact that Ohio suffers from a six percent unemployment rate may help to explain the shifting positions of Senators Clinton and Obama (whether or not job loss can be attributed to NAFTA is a matter discussed later). The fact that such critical stances haven’t been assumed in Texas is evidence of the Democrats’ incessant need to position regarding the matter of free trade.
“As fiercely as they've fought in Ohio over the issue, the rivals haven't focused much on free trade in Texas, which has seen job growth and a huge spike in exports since NAFTA went into effect in 1994. ‘Every trade agreement has winners and losers,’ said Southern Methodist University economist Thomas Osang, who studies free trade. Texas had many of the industries poised to benefit, notably electronics and chemicals, and those industries outweighed losers such as lumber and furniture roughly 2-1.”[5]
Although Senators Clinton and Obama capitalize on protectionist and neo-mercantilist rhetoric in securing the votes necessary for election, the potential policy implications that such talk will have up to this point seems innocuous at best. What should come at greater concern are new up and coming issues such as SWF’s and sparking further regional trade agreements after aggregate bilateral agreements stabilize macroeconomic policy. Hostility to these new issues have already arisen on the campaign trail, and with no definitive voting record to base any judgment off of, speculation becomes a tricky game. The recent move by the Department of the Treasury to increase oversight of SWF’s and the additional pressure being applied to the IMF, although not nearly as caustic as the perspective promoted by Clinton and Obama, smacks of the age old argument surrounding “oversight” and regulation.
“Second, we have proposed that the international community collaborate on the development of a multilateral framework for best practices. The International Monetary Fund, with support from the World Bank, should develop best practices for sovereign wealth funds, building on existing best practices for foreign exchange reserve management. These would provide guidance to new funds on how to structure themselves, reduce any potential systemic risk, and help demonstrate to critics that sovereign wealth funds can be responsible, constructive participants in the international financial system.”[6]
This sort of even-handed approach by US lawmakers and Hillary Clinton is diametrically opposed to the position adopted by Barack Obama. Citing that the largest investment arms are located predominantly in the Middle East, Obama crafted the debate surrounding SWF’s as a matter of the US’s reliance on oil from the region while ignoring wholesale the fact that such investment vehicles as the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Kuwait Investment Authority are reacting as developing countries would be expected to act. Although Senator Obama does echo the sentiment regarding oversight and greater transparency that Senator Clinton trail-blazed, it seems as though it is difficult to assess how these two candidates will react when placed in the Oval Office and are tasked with the responsibility to react to new trends originating from developing nations. The apparent dearth of information regarding such emerging trends as decoupling theory and international financial integration on the part of the politicians vying for office so far reflects a more deeper and profound misunderstanding of the macroeconomic policies that will need emerge in the near future to handle such trends. Subsidizing producers in the US that produce consumer goods will only provide for more expensive goods, which coupled with a weakening dollar, will severely affect foreign nations’ economies which rely off of a robust trade with the US.[7] It seems that the only ostensibly legitimate contentions that the Democrats have so far leveled against the existing establishment are issues over labor and environmental policies.
Contentions over NAFTA: Why the Labor Rights/Environmentalist/Job Loss argument carries little to no weight
The contention that NAFTA has provided for a negative paradigm in terms of labor rights and environmental protections reflect yet another disturbing trend, that of misinformation. Although much talk has been thrown about regarding the lack of a sustainable provision for labor rights in NAFTA, the very fact that a supplemental labor stipulation under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) is provided for under NAFTA contradicts such claims.[8] The existence of a five year strategic agreement through the Commission of Environmental Cooperation also provides a framework through which environmental policy can be worked out.[9] Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lambaste NAFTA as the sole perpetrator in the loss of jobs across the board within the US to foreign firms. Although NAFTA never promised a net total increase in jobs themselves, the fact that overall productivity increased significantly during the years that NAFTA has been in affect provides a clear contradiction to the overarching contention of job loss.
“U.S. employment rose from 112.2 million in December 1993 to 137.2 million in December 2006, an increase of 25 million jobs, or 22 percent. The average unemployment rate was 5.1 percent in the period 1994-2006, compared to 7.1 percent during the period 1981-1993… Growth in real compensation for manufacturing workers improved dramatically. Average real compensation grew at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent from 1993 to 2006, compared to just 0.9 percent annually between 1980 and 1993”[10]
The hidden benefits of an increase in overall productivity translate into cheaper consumer goods that would have been much more expensive if left to inefficient producers within the US. Constituency, instead of fact, seems to be playing a more significant role in swaying the supposed sentiments of both Senators Clinton and Obama (although the leaked memo detailing Obama’s “political positioning” may serve to shed a different light on things)[11]. Senator Clinton, whose reliance on the AFL-CIO has pushed her to a more protectionist stance, differs marginally from Senator Obama, whose support hails from the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union, both of which benefit from increased trade with other nations.[12] Without a clear agenda from either democratic candidate on what they see as the ills of NAFTA and free trade, it seems as though the stances that each candidate has so far amplified has been done so with more emotion than substance. The three primary contentions that each candidate has regarding NAFTA specifically are addressed already within the agreement or are on their way to being accomplished under the current framework, leaving much to be asked about the actual disagreements each candidate has with not only NAFTA, but with free trade as a progressive paradigm.
[1] The New York Times. Despite NAFTA Attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven’t Been Free Trade Foes. February 28, 2008.
[2] The Wall Street Journal. CAPITAL: Decoding Candidates on Trade. February 21, 2008
[3] The Wall Street Journal. Unilateral Democrats. February 28, 2008
[4] US Department of Commerce. NAFTA-A Success for Trade. October 2007
[5] Todd J. Gillman, Gromer Jeffe. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Punches Fly over Trade, Rival Tactics as Democrats Debate in Ohio. Washington: Feb 27, 2008.
[6] US Department of the Treasury. Under Secretary of International Affairs David H. McCormick Testimony Before the Joint Economic Committee. February 13, 2008
[7] The Economist. Finance and Economics: An Independent Streak: Decoupling 1. Jan. 26th 2008
[8] Office of the US Trade Representative. NAFTA-The Road Ahead. (2007)
[9] Office of the US Trade Representative. NAFTA Environment Ministers Adopt Trade and Environment Stratgeic Plan. (06/23/2005)
[10] Office of the US Trade Representative. NAFTA Facts: NAFTA Benefits. (October 2007)
[11] Financial Times. Obama under fire over NAFTA Memo. March 3, 2008
[12] Bhagwati, Jagdish (Financial Times). Obama’s free trade credentials top Clintons. March 3, 2008
Showing posts with label negative impacts of globalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label negative impacts of globalization. Show all posts
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Clinton & Obama Protectionist Trade Rhetoric Will Harm Developing Country Economic Growth Prospects and America's Image Abroad
http://www.newsweek.com/id/117841?from=rss
What the World Is Hearing
A senior Latin American diplomat says, 'We might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave on trade.'
By Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:01 PM ET Mar 1, 2008
Despite their spirited squabbling, the two Democratic candidates are united in the view that one of the big benefits of electing either of them would be an improvement in America's reputation and relations with the world. Hillary Clinton promises to send special envoys to foreign capitals the day after she's elected. Barack Obama offers to reach out to America's foes as well as friends. Unfortunately none of this will matter if they continue to spout dangerous and ill-informed rhetoric about trade.
For the rest of the world—particularly poorer countries—nice speeches about multilateralism are well and good. But what they really want is for the United States to continue its historic role in opening up the world economy. For a struggling farmer in Kenya, access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs. If the candidates think they will charm the world while adopting protectionist policies, they are in for a surprise.
Already the mood is shifting abroad. Listening to the Democrats on trade "is enough to send jitters down the spine of most in India," says the Times Now TV channel in New Delhi. The Canadian press has shared in the global swoon for Obama, but is now beginning to ask questions. "What he is actually saying—and how it might affect Canada—may come as a surprise to otherwise devout Barack boosters," writes Greg Weston in the Edmonton Sun. The African press has been reporting on George W. Bush's visit there with affection and, in some cases, by contrasting his views on trade with the Democratic candidates'. The Bangkok Post has compared the Democrats unfavorably with John McCain and his vision of an East Asia bound together, and to the United States, by expanding trade ties.
For Obama, the backlash could be greatest because he's raised the highest hopes. A senior Latin American diplomat, who asked to remain unnamed because of the sensitivity of the topic, says, "Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade—the issue that affects us so deeply—we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration."
The facts about trade have been too well rehearsed to go into them in any great detail, but let me point out that NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy. And, in Lawrence Summers's words, "[it] didn't cost the United States a penny. It contributed to the strength of our economy because of more exports and because imports helped to reduce inflation." Trade between the NAFTA countries has boomed since 1993, growing by about $700 billion.
There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down. And labor and environmental standards would do very little to change the reality of huge wage differentials between poor and rich countries' workers.
An argument one often hears from the candidates' supporters is that they don't really mean what they say, that their actual proposals on trade agreements involve only minor tinkering. It is an odd defense of candidates promising change, honesty and a new approach to politics to say that they are being cynical and hypocritical. Besides, both candidates are proposing to renegotiate NAFTA, which is a terrible idea. (And one that has prompted the Canadian prime minister to retort that if that happens, his country, too, would like to get more concessions from the United States.) Hillary Clinton has proposed that free-trade deals be re-evaluated every five years, which is absurd. The benefits of trade deals rest on the fact that they are permanent.
But both candidates surely know that no one is really paying attention to their policy papers on the topic. It is their general attitude and rhetoric that matter. And on this crucial topic they are pandering to the worst instincts of Americans, encouraging a form of xenophobia and chauvinism and validating the utterly self-defeating idea of protectionism.
I know, I know. This is all about the Democratic primaries in states like Ohio and the support of unions. But you can't target these messages so easily anymore. What is said in Ohio is heard in Ghana and Bangladesh and Colombia as well. And isn't the point of leadership to educate and elevate people, not to pander and drag them into the swamp of ignorance and fear? There is a way to speak about the pain of globalization—and about the need for investments in retraining, education, health care and infrastructure—so that we can both compete but also absorb the shocks of a changing global economy. Unfortunately that is not what the Democratic candidates are talking about.
I'm not even sure that protectionist rhetoric works that well in a general election. Americans like optimists. They want leaders who look out at the world and see broad, sunlit uplands. Railing against Mexicans, Chinese and Indians for stealing American jobs smacks of anger, paranoia and fear of the future. Americans want hope, as Obama says, "hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope." Where is that courage now?
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/117841
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080303/wl_mcclatchy/2867869
Mexicans say changing NAFTA may force them to move to U.S.
By Franco Ordonez, McClatchy Newspapers
Mon Mar 3, 6:17 PM ET
MEXICO CITY — Jesus Velasquez doesn't want to move to the United States. He fears, however, that he may have to if he loses his job selling avocados. Velasquez, 36, says he and his family have benefited from the North American Free Trade Agreement. For him, the alternative is to immigrate to the United States.
"The trade act is good because we have jobs," he said Sunday, speaking loudly over the clamor of hundreds of workers hauling fruits and vegetables off rumbling trucks. "If there are no jobs, more people are going to go to the U.S. I have so many friends who can't find jobs and leave."
As voters in Ohio , Texas , Rhode Island and Vermont prepare to go to the polls Tuesday, some workers and distributors at this 800-acre food market, one of the biggest in the world, are expressing concern about presidential candidates Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's threats to pull out of NAFTA unless it's renegotiated.
NAFTA is unpopular in Ohio, a key battleground state for Clinton and Obama, where thousands of manufacturing workers have lost jobs.
Several vendors at the Central de Abasto food market said NAFTA isn't perfect. Prices on many products have risen, and many corn farmers said they've been run out of business because of the influx of cheaper American grown corn. But overall, they say, NAFTA has been good for the country, and they worry what changes the U.S. would seek should it return to the negotiating table with Mexico and Canada.
"People are worried," said Gerardo Peralta, 55, who sells rice, nuts and condiments. "If the U.S. tries to renegotiate, they are going to do what's best for them. That could be bad for Mexico."
Some Mexican leaders sought to downplay the candidates' statements as political rhetoric and "campaign talk."
Sen. Ricardo Garcia Cervantes said that any renegotiation of NAFTA would be based on the issues and not on the "heated statements" made by the American political candidates in hopes of gaining their party's nomination.
"In this electoral environment, one that we have to be very attentive to, we also have to be aware that many of these declarations by the Democratic candidates and Republicans are made for gaining votes," Garcia Cervantes , chairman of the Mexican Foreign Relations Commission for North America , said in a statement.
Mexico has gained because of NAFTA, according to Mexican Economy Secretary Eduardo Soto. He told a gathering last week of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican representatives that the Mexican economy has grown 51 percent because of NAFTA, that nearly 5 million jobs have been generated and that exports to the U.S. and Canada have multiplied five times.
"As representatives of the Mexican government, we do not want to insert ourselves into the U.S. political campaigns," he said. "However, we are convinced that what North America needs is more integration and not less integration. North America needs to look to the future and not return to the past."
Avocados have flourished under NAFTA, but not everyone is in favor of the trade agreement. Last month, hundreds of thousands of farmers clogged Mexico City streets with tractors to protest lifting corn tariffs under the free-trade agreement.
Corn farmers said the entry of cheap imported corn has undermined their profits, and towns are emptying because thousands of small farms have gone out of business. Many head to the U.S. illegally looking for better pay.
"It's not that we're against free trade," said Victor Suarez, the executive director of ANEC, a farmers' coalition, who helped organize the Mexico City rally. "We're in favor of free trade that is balanced— not one that is for corporations and monopolies. We want free trade that is fair for all parties involved."
(Ordonez reports for The Charlotte Observer.)
What the World Is Hearing
A senior Latin American diplomat says, 'We might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave on trade.'
By Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:01 PM ET Mar 1, 2008
Despite their spirited squabbling, the two Democratic candidates are united in the view that one of the big benefits of electing either of them would be an improvement in America's reputation and relations with the world. Hillary Clinton promises to send special envoys to foreign capitals the day after she's elected. Barack Obama offers to reach out to America's foes as well as friends. Unfortunately none of this will matter if they continue to spout dangerous and ill-informed rhetoric about trade.
For the rest of the world—particularly poorer countries—nice speeches about multilateralism are well and good. But what they really want is for the United States to continue its historic role in opening up the world economy. For a struggling farmer in Kenya, access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs. If the candidates think they will charm the world while adopting protectionist policies, they are in for a surprise.
Already the mood is shifting abroad. Listening to the Democrats on trade "is enough to send jitters down the spine of most in India," says the Times Now TV channel in New Delhi. The Canadian press has shared in the global swoon for Obama, but is now beginning to ask questions. "What he is actually saying—and how it might affect Canada—may come as a surprise to otherwise devout Barack boosters," writes Greg Weston in the Edmonton Sun. The African press has been reporting on George W. Bush's visit there with affection and, in some cases, by contrasting his views on trade with the Democratic candidates'. The Bangkok Post has compared the Democrats unfavorably with John McCain and his vision of an East Asia bound together, and to the United States, by expanding trade ties.
For Obama, the backlash could be greatest because he's raised the highest hopes. A senior Latin American diplomat, who asked to remain unnamed because of the sensitivity of the topic, says, "Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade—the issue that affects us so deeply—we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration."
The facts about trade have been too well rehearsed to go into them in any great detail, but let me point out that NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy. And, in Lawrence Summers's words, "[it] didn't cost the United States a penny. It contributed to the strength of our economy because of more exports and because imports helped to reduce inflation." Trade between the NAFTA countries has boomed since 1993, growing by about $700 billion.
There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down. And labor and environmental standards would do very little to change the reality of huge wage differentials between poor and rich countries' workers.
An argument one often hears from the candidates' supporters is that they don't really mean what they say, that their actual proposals on trade agreements involve only minor tinkering. It is an odd defense of candidates promising change, honesty and a new approach to politics to say that they are being cynical and hypocritical. Besides, both candidates are proposing to renegotiate NAFTA, which is a terrible idea. (And one that has prompted the Canadian prime minister to retort that if that happens, his country, too, would like to get more concessions from the United States.) Hillary Clinton has proposed that free-trade deals be re-evaluated every five years, which is absurd. The benefits of trade deals rest on the fact that they are permanent.
But both candidates surely know that no one is really paying attention to their policy papers on the topic. It is their general attitude and rhetoric that matter. And on this crucial topic they are pandering to the worst instincts of Americans, encouraging a form of xenophobia and chauvinism and validating the utterly self-defeating idea of protectionism.
I know, I know. This is all about the Democratic primaries in states like Ohio and the support of unions. But you can't target these messages so easily anymore. What is said in Ohio is heard in Ghana and Bangladesh and Colombia as well. And isn't the point of leadership to educate and elevate people, not to pander and drag them into the swamp of ignorance and fear? There is a way to speak about the pain of globalization—and about the need for investments in retraining, education, health care and infrastructure—so that we can both compete but also absorb the shocks of a changing global economy. Unfortunately that is not what the Democratic candidates are talking about.
I'm not even sure that protectionist rhetoric works that well in a general election. Americans like optimists. They want leaders who look out at the world and see broad, sunlit uplands. Railing against Mexicans, Chinese and Indians for stealing American jobs smacks of anger, paranoia and fear of the future. Americans want hope, as Obama says, "hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope." Where is that courage now?
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/117841
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080303/wl_mcclatchy/2867869
Mexicans say changing NAFTA may force them to move to U.S.
By Franco Ordonez, McClatchy Newspapers
Mon Mar 3, 6:17 PM ET
MEXICO CITY — Jesus Velasquez doesn't want to move to the United States. He fears, however, that he may have to if he loses his job selling avocados. Velasquez, 36, says he and his family have benefited from the North American Free Trade Agreement. For him, the alternative is to immigrate to the United States.
"The trade act is good because we have jobs," he said Sunday, speaking loudly over the clamor of hundreds of workers hauling fruits and vegetables off rumbling trucks. "If there are no jobs, more people are going to go to the U.S. I have so many friends who can't find jobs and leave."
As voters in Ohio , Texas , Rhode Island and Vermont prepare to go to the polls Tuesday, some workers and distributors at this 800-acre food market, one of the biggest in the world, are expressing concern about presidential candidates Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's threats to pull out of NAFTA unless it's renegotiated.
NAFTA is unpopular in Ohio, a key battleground state for Clinton and Obama, where thousands of manufacturing workers have lost jobs.
Several vendors at the Central de Abasto food market said NAFTA isn't perfect. Prices on many products have risen, and many corn farmers said they've been run out of business because of the influx of cheaper American grown corn. But overall, they say, NAFTA has been good for the country, and they worry what changes the U.S. would seek should it return to the negotiating table with Mexico and Canada.
"People are worried," said Gerardo Peralta, 55, who sells rice, nuts and condiments. "If the U.S. tries to renegotiate, they are going to do what's best for them. That could be bad for Mexico."
Some Mexican leaders sought to downplay the candidates' statements as political rhetoric and "campaign talk."
Sen. Ricardo Garcia Cervantes said that any renegotiation of NAFTA would be based on the issues and not on the "heated statements" made by the American political candidates in hopes of gaining their party's nomination.
"In this electoral environment, one that we have to be very attentive to, we also have to be aware that many of these declarations by the Democratic candidates and Republicans are made for gaining votes," Garcia Cervantes , chairman of the Mexican Foreign Relations Commission for North America , said in a statement.
Mexico has gained because of NAFTA, according to Mexican Economy Secretary Eduardo Soto. He told a gathering last week of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican representatives that the Mexican economy has grown 51 percent because of NAFTA, that nearly 5 million jobs have been generated and that exports to the U.S. and Canada have multiplied five times.
"As representatives of the Mexican government, we do not want to insert ourselves into the U.S. political campaigns," he said. "However, we are convinced that what North America needs is more integration and not less integration. North America needs to look to the future and not return to the past."
Avocados have flourished under NAFTA, but not everyone is in favor of the trade agreement. Last month, hundreds of thousands of farmers clogged Mexico City streets with tractors to protest lifting corn tariffs under the free-trade agreement.
Corn farmers said the entry of cheap imported corn has undermined their profits, and towns are emptying because thousands of small farms have gone out of business. Many head to the U.S. illegally looking for better pay.
"It's not that we're against free trade," said Victor Suarez, the executive director of ANEC, a farmers' coalition, who helped organize the Mexico City rally. "We're in favor of free trade that is balanced— not one that is for corporations and monopolies. We want free trade that is fair for all parties involved."
(Ordonez reports for The Charlotte Observer.)
Thursday, February 28, 2008
China Concerned About America's Protectionist Trade Talk
International Herald Tribune
China's ambassador to the US chides America for its protectionist trade sentiments
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=10322428
The Associated Press
Saturday, February 23, 2008
INDIANAPOLIS: China's ambassador to the United States chided America for its protectionist trade sentiment while touting China's contributions throughout the world.
Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong, speaking Friday before about 200 people at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, also reiterated his country's hardline stance against Taiwan, saying its independence is out of the question.
"The 1.3 billion people on the mainland and the 23 million people in Taiwan are of the same blood and share a common destiny," he said. "We are willing to make every effort with the utmost sincerity to achieve peaceful reunification of the two sides ... but we will never allow anyone to separate Taiwan from the motherland in any name or by any means."
China claims Taiwan as its own and resists anything that appears to give the self-governing, democratic island the trappings of sovereignty. Officials in Beijing vow to attack at any declaration of Taiwanese independence and have stationed hundreds of missiles opposite Taiwan.
Zhou also noted that many "China-related" trade protection bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress.
Americans are worried by claims that Beijing's low valuation of the yuan, its currency, makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and American products more expensive in China. U.S. lawmakers are considering bills that would punish China for what they contend are predatory trade practices blamed for contributing to the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs.
"The growing protectionist sentiments and the tendency to politicize economic and trade issues are especially worrisome," Zhou said.
Most of Zhou's roughly 40-minute talk focused on China's contributions to a number of world affairs, including negotiations between the two Koreas and improved relationships with Japan, India and Russia.
"We are ready to join hands with people across the world to promote the building of a harmonious world of enduring peace and a common prosperity," he said. "This is China's policy and long-term strategy."
He also noted that China has contributed more than 9,000 peacekeepers to United Nations operations around the globe.
"Working together, China and the United States effectively safeguard and enhance the peace, stability and the prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and the rest of the world," he said.
Two protesters were quickly escorted out of the auditorium when they stood up while Zhou answered an audience question about human rights abuses in China.
China's ambassador to the US chides America for its protectionist trade sentiments
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=10322428
The Associated Press
Saturday, February 23, 2008
INDIANAPOLIS: China's ambassador to the United States chided America for its protectionist trade sentiment while touting China's contributions throughout the world.
Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong, speaking Friday before about 200 people at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, also reiterated his country's hardline stance against Taiwan, saying its independence is out of the question.
"The 1.3 billion people on the mainland and the 23 million people in Taiwan are of the same blood and share a common destiny," he said. "We are willing to make every effort with the utmost sincerity to achieve peaceful reunification of the two sides ... but we will never allow anyone to separate Taiwan from the motherland in any name or by any means."
China claims Taiwan as its own and resists anything that appears to give the self-governing, democratic island the trappings of sovereignty. Officials in Beijing vow to attack at any declaration of Taiwanese independence and have stationed hundreds of missiles opposite Taiwan.
Zhou also noted that many "China-related" trade protection bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress.
Americans are worried by claims that Beijing's low valuation of the yuan, its currency, makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and American products more expensive in China. U.S. lawmakers are considering bills that would punish China for what they contend are predatory trade practices blamed for contributing to the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs.
"The growing protectionist sentiments and the tendency to politicize economic and trade issues are especially worrisome," Zhou said.
Most of Zhou's roughly 40-minute talk focused on China's contributions to a number of world affairs, including negotiations between the two Koreas and improved relationships with Japan, India and Russia.
"We are ready to join hands with people across the world to promote the building of a harmonious world of enduring peace and a common prosperity," he said. "This is China's policy and long-term strategy."
He also noted that China has contributed more than 9,000 peacekeepers to United Nations operations around the globe.
"Working together, China and the United States effectively safeguard and enhance the peace, stability and the prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and the rest of the world," he said.
Two protesters were quickly escorted out of the auditorium when they stood up while Zhou answered an audience question about human rights abuses in China.
Candidates Convey Confusion Over Trade: There are No Silver Bullets
Decoding Candidates on Trade
Both voted to whack China for keeping its currency weak. Both back 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry's plan to use the tax code to reward companies for keeping jobs in the U.S., though Mr. Obama does so more loudly.
Lately, the two have been maneuvering to see who can be nastier about Nafta. In the end, though, neither would abrogate the treaty. She would "review...and work with our trading partners to make necessary adjustments." He would "work to amend."
DISCUSS
What sort of trade policy do you think a President McCain or President Clinton or President Obama would -- or should -- pursue?
Veterans of the Bill Clinton White House say Mrs. Clinton was a loyal soldier, but often unenthusiastic, at best, about her husband's embrace of globalization. Pro-globalization Democrats long have been uneasy about her for that reason.
Until his campaign reached the Midwest, Mr. Obama sounded like the former president. "Like [Clinton Treasury Secretary] Bob Rubin, I am optimistic about...the ability of U.S. workers to compete in a free trade environment -- but only if we distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across the population," he wrote in his 2006 book. The big-company chief executives who belong to the Business Roundtable say almost the same thing.
But if Bill Clinton were running again, he'd probably put some distance between his campaign and his eight-year presidency. It's the voters, stupid.
In December, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked Americans whether the increasingly global nature of the U.S. economy was good ("because it has opened up new markets and resulted in more jobs") or bad ("because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor.") By 58% to 28%, the respondents said it was bad.
MORE
By DAVID WESSEL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120354791005181195.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The virtues of international trade and the pressures globalization is putting on American workers are becoming more prominent issues in the presidential campaign, even though the candidates most hostile to trade got trounced.
Sen. John McCain, the Republican, is the free trader in the race. "We need to continue to lower barriers to trade because 95% of the world's customers live outside the United States," Mr. McCain said recently in Michigan, where the jobless rate is 7.6%, the highest in the nation. "We need to have competitive manufacturing through lower health-care costs, lower taxes and opening new markets."
Mr. McCain has been a steady supporter of free trade in the Senate -- from the North American Free Trade Agreement to the pending U.S. trade pact with South Korea, which even some trade lovers find flawed.
By contrast, Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are vying to be the bigger trade skeptic. As they fight for Ohio (jobless rate 6%), neither wants the mantle of former President Clinton, who shucked the populist strains of his 1992 campaign and became a champion of Nafta and China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
Both voted to whack China for keeping its currency weak. Both back 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry's plan to use the tax code to reward companies for keeping jobs in the U.S., though Mr. Obama does so more loudly.
Lately, the two have been maneuvering to see who can be nastier about Nafta. In the end, though, neither would abrogate the treaty. She would "review...and work with our trading partners to make necessary adjustments." He would "work to amend."
DISCUSS
What sort of trade policy do you think a President McCain or President Clinton or President Obama would -- or should -- pursue?
Veterans of the Bill Clinton White House say Mrs. Clinton was a loyal soldier, but often unenthusiastic, at best, about her husband's embrace of globalization. Pro-globalization Democrats long have been uneasy about her for that reason.
Until his campaign reached the Midwest, Mr. Obama sounded like the former president. "Like [Clinton Treasury Secretary] Bob Rubin, I am optimistic about...the ability of U.S. workers to compete in a free trade environment -- but only if we distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across the population," he wrote in his 2006 book. The big-company chief executives who belong to the Business Roundtable say almost the same thing.
But if Bill Clinton were running again, he'd probably put some distance between his campaign and his eight-year presidency. It's the voters, stupid.
In December, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked Americans whether the increasingly global nature of the U.S. economy was good ("because it has opened up new markets and resulted in more jobs") or bad ("because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor.") By 58% to 28%, the respondents said it was bad.
MORE
• Comparison of where candidates stand on trade (PDF)
From The Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll:
"Do you think the fact that the American economy has become increasingly global is good because it has opened up new markets for American progress and resulted in more jobs, or bad because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor?"
Dec. 2007 June 1997
Good 28% 42%
Bad 58% 48%
Equally Good & Bad 11% 7%
Not Sure 3% 3%
From the December 2007 poll:
Good Bad Equal/Not Sure
Professionals 37% 50% 13%
White collar 27% 58% 15%
Blue collar 15% 72% 13%
Retirees 23% 62% 15%
* * * * * * * * *
Democrats 25% 63% 12%
Republicans 32% 55% 13%
By contrast, in August 2007, the question drew a much less-hostile response: 48% bad to 42% good. (The rest weren't sure or deemed globalization equally good and bad.) President Bush has done little to ease Americans' anxiety; even some of his own appointees won't defend the administration's rejection of Democratic overtures on shoring up assistance to workers hurt by trade.
So what happens after Inauguration Day? Even Mr. McCain, if eager to press Mr. Bush's trade-pact agenda, would be likely to face a Democratic Congress elected by voters who, though they may shop for imported underwear at Wal-Mart, believe globalization is holding down their wages.
Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama is likely to be able to do much about trade deals already in effect, despite their campaign rhetoric. Neither, even in the heat of the Midwestern spotlight, is talking about new barriers to trade. The Depression-era Smoot-Hawley tariffs aren't coming back. And the Democrats' trade hard-liner, former Sen. John Edwards, has dropped out of the race.
The issue really is about what happens going forward. And the most likely answer on trade is not much. Barring an unlikely breakthrough in the Doha Round of world trade talks, neither Democrat is likely to make trade deals -- even renegotiated to incorporate labor and environmental standards -- a top priority.
The fate of the deal with South Korea will be the most important early test case: It's a big economy, far more significant than Peru or Panama. The new Korean government might be willing to reopen the agreement to save the pact from a Democratic president pledged to oppose it. But even if Mr. Obama wins, the "timeout" on trade deals that Mrs. Clinton proposes is the most likely outcome. And that could turn out to be a route to maintaining good parts of globalization, which would lose an up-or-down vote right now.
The anxiety about globalization among a huge swath of the electorate reflects widespread economic insecurity and a sense that the U.S. economy isn't delivering the goods for many. Tweaking trade deals or adding another program for workers hurt by imports won't salve those fears.
A "timeout" to try to fix flaws in the American health-care system and to streamline and expand worker-assistance programs so they help workers cope both with technology and trade could be the key to preserving the benefits of globalization in the long run.
Monday, February 4, 2008
2008: Trade Barriers or Trade Liberalization??
2008: Trade Barriers or Trade Liberalization??
Trade Disputes Will Mark 2008
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/01/28/doha-trade-talks-oped-cx_ccp_0129doha.html
FORBES
C. Christopher Parlin
January 28, 2008
Washington, D.C. -
The trade policy outlook for this year is grim, though a concerted effort and a change in approach by many businesspeople could stem backsliding into protectionism.
In the U.S., worsening economic news coupled with the upcoming elections guarantee slow, if any, progress in reducing worldwide trade barriers and increasing market access for U.S. companies. Around the world, these negatives are reinforced by fear of ever-expanding Chinese exports, lack of political will in the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha negotiators, and reluctance by trading partners to make concessions to the U.S. in the absence of the president's fast track negotiating authority (aka trade promotion authority).
There will be tensions this year because of the economic and political climate and the lack of breakthroughs in the Doha negotiations. There will be disagreements regarding actions taken (and not taken) as a result of this tension. The question is how these disagreements will be managed and whether they will lead to trade disputes.
The default option is a significant increase in disputes, as the focus of the U.S. and its trading partners leads to protectionist and discriminatory policies. Most will lose in the long run if this happens. The challenge now is to analyze the difficulties that the multilateral trading system will face and develop strategies to limit the resulting harm and serve as stepping stones for resumed progress when the worldwide economic and political climate improves.
Historically, trade liberalization efforts have succeeded only in a healthy worldwide economic climate (the Uruguay Round negotiations creating the WTO in the early 1990s) or after an economic cataclysm (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, after World War II). At such times, governments and businesses focus on the horse trading necessary to achieve greater worldwide liberalization. The concept of giving in order to get--of reducing some of your trade barriers to secure reductions from others in areas of greater interest to you--is recognized and acted on. Those losing protection don't like it, but the pro-liberalization forces are stronger.
By contrast, in problematic economic climates, fear of giving predominates. Politicians hear more from constituents condemning adverse effects of imports (and now globalization) on income and jobs than they do from those seeking to give or receive expanded market access. In the U.S., this shift was apparent in the 2006 congressional elections. And it becomes more evident every day as signs of an economic slowdown grow. Bipartisan efforts to enact a stimulus package are welcome, but they are extremely unlikely to improve the trade policy picture.
At the same time, the prospects for a pro-trade congressional majority are nil, and, although much of the protectionist rhetoric of U.S. presidential candidates is just talk, the prospects for a trade-friendly administration are uncertain, at best. The systemic concern caused by a weakening economy is bolstered by particularized fear of a continued Chinese economic juggernaut. No amount of learned discourse, or administration exhortation about the economic benefits of further trade liberalization for the country as a whole, can counteract the present fearful mood in the U.S.
Since the end of the Second World War, the U.S. has been described as the locomotive of world trade liberalization. A very solid argument can be made that GATT was created and the WTO evolved from it as a result of U.S. willingness to make the market-opening concessions necessary to drive other countries to agree to ever greater reductions of trade barriers and increases in market access opportunities.
Despite valiant efforts by the U.S. trade representative, Susan C. Schwab, the country now is stopped on a siding. The public does not accept pro-trade rhetoric, and the administration is unable to credibly promise trading partners that Congress will enact trade-liberalizing measures such as reducing agricultural support (enhancing the competitiveness of other agricultural exporters) or changing certain U.S. anti-dumping rules that most of our trading partners view as blatantly protectionist.
A replacement locomotive is needed, but none has appeared. Neither the European Union, Japan nor any collection of countries has stepped forward to provide leadership in the WTO's Doha negotiations. Instead, the goal seems to be to ensure that blame for failure is attributed to someone else. This is intensified by the inability of the administration to secure renewal of trade promotion authority (under which Congress agrees to an up or down vote on trade agreements, ceding its normal ability to condition ratification on amendments to the negotiated text). Not surprisingly, many of our trading partners will use the absence of fast track as an excuse for not making concessions sought by the U.S., asserting that Congress would demand additional concessions beyond those ultimately negotiated by the administration.
What is to be done? One possibility is to hunker down and wait for better times. That would ensure at best a standstill, but more likely a worldwide increase in protectionism throughout 2008. There is a better option, though. This could be a bad year for forward-looking trade policy, but it need not be a disaster. Rather than ceding the field to those advocating policies of increased protection and unilateralism, the proponents of multilateral liberalization could seek to preserve the positive aspects of the Doha negotiations. Even though significant breakthroughs leading to a successful conclusion will not occur in 2008, the negotiations need not collapse.
Experience during the Uruguay Round is instructive. There was a three-year period when none of the major negotiating parties was able to move on politically sensitive issues such as agriculture, services and textiles. Despite this high-level paralysis, all of the 15 subject matter negotiating groups continued to plug away. As a result, when worldwide political will re-emerged in mid-1993, most of the technical underbrush had been cleared away. A similar scenario could occur this year. The negotiating gains achieved to date could be preserved and steps taken to make technical progress where possible.
On the domestic front, too, 2008 need not be a disaster. Here, the keys will be education and understanding.
To avoid significant backsliding, those supporting multilateral liberalization must emerge from their foxholes and engage more actively and effectively in the globalization debate, educating politicians and opinion makers about the benefits of additional liberalization. At the same time, they must not ignore the dark side of globalization: It has not benefited all Americans. Many have legitimate concerns about their income and jobs.
Economics 101 lectures about the overall benefits of free trade may be sound economically, but will not be politically successful, especially given the worsening economic climate. To strengthen their presentation, advocates of trade liberalization must work to reformulate, advocate and implement policies that will assist those whose lives are negatively affected by globalization. The choice is theoretical purity and political defeat, or creative solutions that recognize the political climate.
Effectively, the course of trade policy today is dependent on what is done by those supporting increased trade liberalization. If they do nothing, the year will see significantly increased international economic tensions, disagreements and disputes. The challenge is to develop a new model in support of liberalization, one that accepts reality and proposes solutions for those who are harmed by globalization. By doing so, we may limit protectionist backsliding so progress can resume when the worldwide economic and political climate improves.
Trade Disputes Will Mark 2008
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/01/28/doha-trade-talks-oped-cx_ccp_0129doha.html
FORBES
C. Christopher Parlin
January 28, 2008
Washington, D.C. -
The trade policy outlook for this year is grim, though a concerted effort and a change in approach by many businesspeople could stem backsliding into protectionism.
In the U.S., worsening economic news coupled with the upcoming elections guarantee slow, if any, progress in reducing worldwide trade barriers and increasing market access for U.S. companies. Around the world, these negatives are reinforced by fear of ever-expanding Chinese exports, lack of political will in the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha negotiators, and reluctance by trading partners to make concessions to the U.S. in the absence of the president's fast track negotiating authority (aka trade promotion authority).
There will be tensions this year because of the economic and political climate and the lack of breakthroughs in the Doha negotiations. There will be disagreements regarding actions taken (and not taken) as a result of this tension. The question is how these disagreements will be managed and whether they will lead to trade disputes.
The default option is a significant increase in disputes, as the focus of the U.S. and its trading partners leads to protectionist and discriminatory policies. Most will lose in the long run if this happens. The challenge now is to analyze the difficulties that the multilateral trading system will face and develop strategies to limit the resulting harm and serve as stepping stones for resumed progress when the worldwide economic and political climate improves.
Historically, trade liberalization efforts have succeeded only in a healthy worldwide economic climate (the Uruguay Round negotiations creating the WTO in the early 1990s) or after an economic cataclysm (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, after World War II). At such times, governments and businesses focus on the horse trading necessary to achieve greater worldwide liberalization. The concept of giving in order to get--of reducing some of your trade barriers to secure reductions from others in areas of greater interest to you--is recognized and acted on. Those losing protection don't like it, but the pro-liberalization forces are stronger.
By contrast, in problematic economic climates, fear of giving predominates. Politicians hear more from constituents condemning adverse effects of imports (and now globalization) on income and jobs than they do from those seeking to give or receive expanded market access. In the U.S., this shift was apparent in the 2006 congressional elections. And it becomes more evident every day as signs of an economic slowdown grow. Bipartisan efforts to enact a stimulus package are welcome, but they are extremely unlikely to improve the trade policy picture.
At the same time, the prospects for a pro-trade congressional majority are nil, and, although much of the protectionist rhetoric of U.S. presidential candidates is just talk, the prospects for a trade-friendly administration are uncertain, at best. The systemic concern caused by a weakening economy is bolstered by particularized fear of a continued Chinese economic juggernaut. No amount of learned discourse, or administration exhortation about the economic benefits of further trade liberalization for the country as a whole, can counteract the present fearful mood in the U.S.
Since the end of the Second World War, the U.S. has been described as the locomotive of world trade liberalization. A very solid argument can be made that GATT was created and the WTO evolved from it as a result of U.S. willingness to make the market-opening concessions necessary to drive other countries to agree to ever greater reductions of trade barriers and increases in market access opportunities.
Despite valiant efforts by the U.S. trade representative, Susan C. Schwab, the country now is stopped on a siding. The public does not accept pro-trade rhetoric, and the administration is unable to credibly promise trading partners that Congress will enact trade-liberalizing measures such as reducing agricultural support (enhancing the competitiveness of other agricultural exporters) or changing certain U.S. anti-dumping rules that most of our trading partners view as blatantly protectionist.
A replacement locomotive is needed, but none has appeared. Neither the European Union, Japan nor any collection of countries has stepped forward to provide leadership in the WTO's Doha negotiations. Instead, the goal seems to be to ensure that blame for failure is attributed to someone else. This is intensified by the inability of the administration to secure renewal of trade promotion authority (under which Congress agrees to an up or down vote on trade agreements, ceding its normal ability to condition ratification on amendments to the negotiated text). Not surprisingly, many of our trading partners will use the absence of fast track as an excuse for not making concessions sought by the U.S., asserting that Congress would demand additional concessions beyond those ultimately negotiated by the administration.
What is to be done? One possibility is to hunker down and wait for better times. That would ensure at best a standstill, but more likely a worldwide increase in protectionism throughout 2008. There is a better option, though. This could be a bad year for forward-looking trade policy, but it need not be a disaster. Rather than ceding the field to those advocating policies of increased protection and unilateralism, the proponents of multilateral liberalization could seek to preserve the positive aspects of the Doha negotiations. Even though significant breakthroughs leading to a successful conclusion will not occur in 2008, the negotiations need not collapse.
Experience during the Uruguay Round is instructive. There was a three-year period when none of the major negotiating parties was able to move on politically sensitive issues such as agriculture, services and textiles. Despite this high-level paralysis, all of the 15 subject matter negotiating groups continued to plug away. As a result, when worldwide political will re-emerged in mid-1993, most of the technical underbrush had been cleared away. A similar scenario could occur this year. The negotiating gains achieved to date could be preserved and steps taken to make technical progress where possible.
On the domestic front, too, 2008 need not be a disaster. Here, the keys will be education and understanding.
To avoid significant backsliding, those supporting multilateral liberalization must emerge from their foxholes and engage more actively and effectively in the globalization debate, educating politicians and opinion makers about the benefits of additional liberalization. At the same time, they must not ignore the dark side of globalization: It has not benefited all Americans. Many have legitimate concerns about their income and jobs.
Economics 101 lectures about the overall benefits of free trade may be sound economically, but will not be politically successful, especially given the worsening economic climate. To strengthen their presentation, advocates of trade liberalization must work to reformulate, advocate and implement policies that will assist those whose lives are negatively affected by globalization. The choice is theoretical purity and political defeat, or creative solutions that recognize the political climate.
Effectively, the course of trade policy today is dependent on what is done by those supporting increased trade liberalization. If they do nothing, the year will see significantly increased international economic tensions, disagreements and disputes. The challenge is to develop a new model in support of liberalization, one that accepts reality and proposes solutions for those who are harmed by globalization. By doing so, we may limit protectionist backsliding so progress can resume when the worldwide economic and political climate improves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
