Remember Hillary bashing Obama for allegedly talking out of both sides of his mouth on NAFTA? Well, the chief of staff to the Canadian Prime Minister says it was Hillary's staff who assured the Canadians that her bluster against NAFTA was all for show. More from Josh Marshall.
As long as you have a political pension and benefits for life like Gordon Brown and others who talk up free trade. It's all fine and good to talk about the evils of protectionism but you have to be able to address the valid concerns of working people who watch their jobs go overseas or pay decline rapidly. Global trade can offer many plenty of positive benefits but to just wing it and open everything (think NAFTA) without restrictions isn't the answer either. Can a worker in France, for example, really compete with someone in Bulgaria for the same job but at a fraction of the pay? We see this struggle over and over on both sides of the Atlantic.
These are problems that Western Europe and the US are facing and neither extreme position is the right answer. Even when we do set up so-called free trade, all too often it only means free for local special interests and not-so-free for everyone else. Many in the emerging markets would like less dumping by First World countries and greater ability to sell their own products overseas. As the British economy heads downhill, how many regular families are going to want to dive in to the unrestricted free market? Moving in that direction over time is one thing, but the well being of families is at stake, so no need to rush overnight.
Whether or not subsidies are warranted or fair is an issue that needs to be reviewed but once again Bush and the GOP love to attack anyone who fails to subscribe to their jury rigged system of supposed free trade. When a foreign country calls them out and takes them to court, the result often is the same. This time it was Brazil who took the US to court and won with the WTO ruling against US subsidies to cotton farmers.
"The panel found that the changes made by the United States were insufficient to bring the challenged measures — certain support payments under the 2002 Farm Bill and export credit guarantees — into conformity with U.S. WTO obligations," it said in an e-mailed statement Monday. "We are very disappointed with these results."
The United States has argued that it sufficiently overhauled its cotton program when it scrapped two export credit guarantee programs and last year repealed the so-called Step-2 cotton-marketing program that made payments to exporters and domestic mill users as compensation for buying higher-priced American cotton.
But Brazil said Washington's continued support for American cotton producers ensured artificially high production and export levels, hurting Brazilian and African producers.
The Brazilian government claims the U.S. retained its place as the world's second-largest cotton grower by paying out $12.5 billion in government subsidies to American farmers between August 1999 and July 2003. China is the largest exporter of cotton, while Brazil is fifth.
The GOP can always talk the talk, but never walk the walk.
There's nothing wrong with international trade and there are benefits for everyone when it's fair. Bush and the GOP love talking about free trade and the extensive benefits of free trade though they too easily dismiss the downside of supposed free trade, which can negatively impact both Americans as well as people in other countries. When powerful countries dump massively subsidized products on poor countries, selling for less than break even for locals, that's not fair and only leads to more poverty and suffering. When an American job is outsourced to someone who takes half (or less) to do the same job (and can still live comfortably) overseas, is that fair? Painting this as a black and white issue is false but what we've come to expect from Bush.
The issue of trade and disrupting the livelihoods of people is not something we should take lightly. Free trade is much more complex than initially concluded by Washington and there's no need to keep repeating the same mistake, just because that's what Bush and the GOP want to do. Just because Bush says free trade is great and the benefits are wonderful for everyone, doesn't mean it's true. We could use a lot more debate and discussion these days instead of business as usual. I hope that as a country, we have moved on beyond the dictatorial relationship between a power hungry administration and a lapdog congress. There is nothing wrong with finding a middle ground, though it seems like such a long lost art in Washington but one we need to rediscover. We live in a democracy so let's start acting like one.
One thing that always surprises/impresses/horrifies me about the Republicans is their ability to repeat the same message, regardless of the current circumstances.
Exhibit A is this morning's Washington Post article on President Bush's trip to Sydney. Yesterday, Bush urged Asian leaders to continue to join with America in free trade agreements.
President Bush on Friday called on Pacific Rim leaders to support efforts to expand free trade, saying that open markets are a crucial element in strengthening the "forces of freedom and prosperity."
Speaking to business leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum at the famed Sydney Opera House, Bush said free trade is the only route to long-term freedom and growth, despite the short-term pain it often causes in industrialized nations in terms of lost jobs and stagnant wages.
"The surest road to stagnation and instability is the path of isolation and protectionism," Bush said. "And the only road to enduring prosperity and stability is through open markets and open trade."
I find Bush's efforts on behalf of free trade with Asia breathtaking. Look, it's not that I would expect him to suddenly change his views on free trade, but given what we know about our trading arrangements with China, a sane person would at least have some reservations about asking for more.
Over the past few months, the Chinese have poisoned our animals and our children. We've had several recalls. And, by the way, the trade deficit with China approached a quarter of a trillion dollars last year (that's trillion with a t). Given that China is making so much more money out of this trade deal and in return giving the United States poisonous products, wouldn't it make sense for the President to at least revise our current strategy towards free trade in Asia? I'm not saying go all Smoot-Hawley on their asses, but shouldn't we at least do a cost-benefit analysis of these deals before asking for more?
