Trade bashing today, but what tomorrow?
This post originally appeared February 29th, 2008 in Views from the Center, a blog by the Center for Global Development.
The crucial role of the Ohio primary in deciding the Democratic nominee for president is having a regrettable impact on judgment and rhetoric in this campaign, as noted earlier this week by Lawrence MacDonald. But does this necessarily mean that a Democratic president–either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama–along with a Democratic Congress, which has been stubbornly blocking a vote on the trade agreement negotiated with Colombia, would be bad for trade, especially with developing countries?
Not necessarily, at least not relative to a situation where John McCain is president and facing a Democratic Congress (a Republican majority in either chamber seems unlikely at this stage). That political alignment has led to gridlock for the past two years, since the Democrats recaptured both houses of Congress, and the opposite alignment in the 1990s did the same for the last six years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. The problem is the increasing lack of trust between the two parties.
Under “trade promotion authority,” the US Congress delegates some of its constitutional authority to regulate trade to the executive branch. It allows the president to negotiate trade agreements that the Congress agrees to vote on expeditiously and without amending it. That process requires a certain level of trust on the part of Congress that the president will use the authority in ways that Congress finds acceptable. But increasing political partisanship–generally as well as over trade–has undermined the trust that underpins that process.
There is an even more fundamental reason why a Democratic president and Congress, working together, might do more to put trade back on track. Democrats, at least in their rhetoric, are more committed to working on the domestic policy agenda that is desperately needed to support globalization–from an expanded Trade Adjustment Act, to unemployment insurance reform, and better education and training for workers. And, of course, expanding health care coverage has been a major issue in the campaign.
Still the recent rhetoric is troubling and it has costs that the candidates ignore to their peril once we get past Ohio. The Financial Times summed them up well in an editorial yesterday:
“The next Democratic administration promises to repair US alliances and standing in the world. A worthy aim. Yet its first act, the party says, will be to tell its closest neighbours that the rules they are all agreed to are defunct – and if they do not like it, tough luck.”
Stumble it! | 
Digg It! | 
Add to Del.icio.us |
Add to Facebook
March 13th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Friends.
I am a Venezuelan currently (or permanently) stranded here in the US and had also the great opportunity of having been an Executive Director at the World Bank (2002-2004) where I represented Mexico and all the other Central American nations. And so of course, as an alien though an earthling, I am more than interested in the ongoing immigration debate.
In this respect I would like to share the following thoughts with you. I admit they are a bit egoistic, localistic or region centered; and that they do not embrace the whole world…but I guess that’s life; and you also need to start somewhere.
Any person who has seen many of his friends losing jobs is naturally scared the same will happen to be and will therefore naturally be prayed upon by the politician who offer him some ilusion of safety; and it would be ridiculous to expect it to be otherwise when in fact, if elected, as government, they are supposed to help to calm those same fears.
So our best hope lies that the politicians in their tricking for the votes do not construct obstacles that makes it even harder to fulfill their promises if they win.
One of such obstacles might be the use of NAFTA and CAFTA as the boogey man. Since much of the pain is caused more by the globalization process itself than by any regional trade agreement the politicians instead of saying stop NAFTA and CAFTA would be more correct saying “stop the world I want to get off” but, since they can’t really do that without looking as outdated fools, they settle with bashing the neighbors.
I on the contrary, find that the best contribution I could give that region, dear to me, is by telling my American friends “Now, if you are going to lose your job anyhow, try then at least to lose it to your neighbor. It is actually in your best interest”.
PS. I’ve got some more, like:
Who on earth tells the rest of the diners at the table to go home just when the check is presented to them?… on the contrary in order for the US to grow itself out of its current mess, excuse the word but that is what it is, the best thing it could do is to get itself 40 million additional willing workers, from their neighboring countries of course.