Floating the Most Discredited Canard of the Trade Debate

by: David Sirota

Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:00


Bad news from CBS:

Obama: Economic Crisis May Delay NAFTA Negotiations

President Obama made a U.S.-led renegotiation of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) labor and environmental standards a central promise of his campaign. But asked today if he plans to start negotiations during his Thursday visit to Canada, Mr. Obama suggested that economic duress may postpone the NAFTA plans.

"There are a lot of sensitivities right now because of the huge decline in world trade," Mr. Obama told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

This is troubling on two levels. First and foremost, we need to renegotiate NAFTA to put labor and environmental standards into the agreement so that they are truly enforceable. We protect pharmaceutical patents, intellectual property and copyrights in NAFTA - that is, we protect corporate rights in the agreement, and we need to protect human/environmental rights too, just as Obama promised during the campaign.

But even more upsetting is the broader ideology Obama seems to be espousing in his rationale for potentially delaying systemic trade renegotiations.

David Sirota :: Floating the Most Discredited Canard of the Trade Debate
Though he reluctantly went on to say he thinks labor and environmental protections need to be put into NAFTA, the way he structured his comments - specifically, the way he juxtaposed economic growth against reformed trade - seems to subscribe to the discredited concept that making trade rules more fair somehow at odds with economic growth . Oddly, he's implying this at the very same time he has said worker rights (ie. The Employee Free Choice Act) and environmental protection (for example, investing in green jobs) are key to long-term economic growth here at home.

Of course, the idea that basic environmental and worker rights in trade agreements are bad for the economy has no actual basis in data or fact. It's all free-trade theology - but certainly not "pragmatism" and certainly not based in any concrete evidence. This theology asks us to believe that protectionism for  patents and for (as Dean Baker repeatedly points out) professional jobs is great for economic growth at a time of crisis, but the same protectionism for human rights and the environment would exacerbate the economic crisis.

Where is this theology coming from? Likely from the Team of Zombies. Obama has put the same free-trade fundamentalists in his government that originally crafted and championed NAFTA and NAFTA-style trade agreements (Summers, Geithner, Emanuel, etc.). These are people whose careers coddling corporate power are directly at odds with Obama's campaign promises (made, of course, in key industrial swing states) to seriously reform our trade policies.

This, of course, says nothing of the broader trade reforms that Obama also promised during the campaign - procurement reforms, reforms of international trade organizations, etc. Labor/environmental standards are the absolute minimum that needs to happen. And again, no one has been able to substantively show how the pragmatic fair trade reforms most progressives are pushing would weaken economic growth.

So now Obama has to choose whether to follow through on his campaign promises, or back out of them at the behest of his Washington advisers. Between his tepid statements on basic Buy America laws that he originally promised to vigorously support and now these weak statements on NAFTA, it looks like he's starting to prioritize the Washington status quo on trade over real change he promised.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I have never expected (4.00 / 2)
President Obama to follow through on NAFTA promises.  Remember Goolsbie's remark to the Canadians or Obama's walkaway from it after the primaries?

It's one of the areas in which I am disappointed in Obama.  But he showed where he was on the Peru Unfair Trade Agreement vote.

On the upside, I understand he is not following through on Columbia.  Read that somewhere.  

I expect that Obama will not overturn the Unfair Trade deals, but he won't try to get new ones in either.

With public pressure, however, we might get better results, although that likely is years away.
 


Wasn't Goolsbee's comment... (4.00 / 1)
Determined to be inaccurately reported?

In any case, whatever you believe about NAFTA, I doubt that even 10% of people that voted for him had it as their biggest issue, and I don't agree with the articles assessment that it was a "major" campaign issue.  I think it was mentioned from time to time, particularly when he was asked about it, but it wasn't really the big drive of his campaign.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't keep his promise, just that it never was on his list of the "most important" things for him to do.


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure it was and (4.00 / 1)
events afterward seem to suggest that Obama had no intent to live up to his promise.

He's a politician.  

Overall his polcies are good, but he's mediocre on trade.    


[ Parent ]
The only inaccuracy (0.00 / 0)
was when they tried to blame it on Hillary.

[ Parent ]
exactly (0.00 / 0)
everything in the memo has come to fruition. now , he's apparently trying to blame his backtracking on the economy -- even though he was backtracking as soon as he got the nomination.  

[ Parent ]
Well it turned out they were more or less accuratley reported (4.00 / 1)
I NEVER espected Obama to really mean it when he said he would hopd hostage the renewal of NAFTA to renegotiating labor and environmental standards.  

During debate while they campaigned in Ohio,

Clinton: I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do. . . . Yes, I am serious. . . . I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America. . .

Russert asked the same question to Obama

Obama: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.

She was so definitive he had no option out. But Goolsbee did reassure Canada that it was just political on Obama's part. I always thought it was.  I was bewildered by those thought it was a promise he intended to keep.

This is him, not his advisors. If it was clear during the primary that he didn't mean, then its his position not theirs.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
it was a MAJOR campaign issue in the rust belt (0.00 / 0)
two things:
first, nafta was a major campaign issue in the nation's heartland, where people blame (or are very open to blaming) free trade on the loss of jobs in the region.  so, this was a huge issue in ohio and pennsylvania in particular.

second, the economic crisis is simply a justification for inaction that has recently emerged. it requires us to forget the fact that immediately after he lost ohio and pennsylvania, he stopped talking about nafta.  and once he chose naft-voting biden as a running mate, the deal was over.  during a june 2008 interview, obama was already backing off of the campaign rhetoric: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/1...


[ Parent ]
it's an interesting interview (0.00 / 0)
the whole thing is here

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story...

Look at the oilsands (and coal) stuff.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


Obama's comment seems perfectly reasonable to me. (4.00 / 1)
Just as you wouldn't want to cut spending in the middle of a recession, you wouldn't want to move to limit trade when global trade is suddenly drying up.

I'm all for the long-term goals of increased labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, but they are nonetheless long-term goals, and moving on them now might have the short-term effect of limiting trade in a way that would ultimately cost jobs. This just happens to be one of those moments when the short-term calculation is more important than the long-term calculation.


If not now, when (0.00 / 0)
Public disgust with these bad trade deals is high.  Other countries, forced with lost trade or needed reform, are more vulnerable than at most times.  We need jobs and we want fairness.  This is the perfect time to press for trade concessions.

[ Parent ]
If not: when, <i>now?</i> (4.00 / 2)
Why would other countries be more likely to make concessions now? They're all in just as bad shape as the US. Just look at how the EU reacted to the Buy American provisions in the stimulus.

[ Parent ]
Do you think NAFTA is unfair to the US? Did Mexico benefit so much? (0.00 / 0)
What I'm missing here is a serious attempt to understand the situation of Mexico in this, and to look for solution that would help both sides, not onyl the US. It even looks somewhat racist, because obviously nobody is having any problem with Canada at all, it's always only ranting about all those great jobs outsourced to Mexico. Uh, are you even aware that Mexico's imports are higher than its exports, too? That tens of thousands of farm oweners and workers lost their jobs because of the competition from huge US agrigultiural businesses ruining them? That the GDP/capita is just a quarter of the US one, with the distribution of wealth and income being even more unfair than in the states?

Well, instead of all these rants about alleged "unfairness", it would be nice to see an alternative plan for NAFTA, a proposal that would cope with the obvious problems, and that would be fair to BOTH nations, not only the US. Yes, NAFTA has to be improved, but how exactly? Let's get serious, pls.


[ Parent ]
weren't we in a recession during the ohio primary? (0.00 / 0)
he's using the economy as a convenient excuse.  back in june, he said the campaign rhetoric got overheated.  now, it's the economy's fault. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/1...

[ Parent ]
Eh, politics... (0.00 / 0)
I think the effect of the economic crisis is not that Obama believes that NAFTA as it exists is best for growth/the economy, I suspect it is that he knows that he only has so much political capital and has to prioritize.

We saw that happened when the stimulus sale went off message for four days - a fight on NAFTA, which is likely to be high profile, divisive and thus require a lot of political capital. Obama could well believe that kind of investment of political capital is worth it under some circumstances, but not worth it in the midst of an economic meltdown that will require him to pass controvertial bill after controvertial bill.

I don't think this is a "secret plan" type formulation - I think it is taking him at his word both during the campaign, and now. It, to me, is the Occam's Razor that allows both positions to be 'true' and offered in good faith.


hah (0.00 / 1)
You should be glad he is even thinking about renegotiating it, according to many people here he would NEVER do that after the primary was over. Puma's are funny here too, you think "your girl" would even touch NAFTA or talk about opening it under any circumstances? looking at you frank0 and amberglow.

the economy is just an excuse: read (0.00 / 0)
describing people as a "puma" to discount their arguments is utterly bankrupt. anyway, back in june of 2008, here's what obama said on his nafta grandstanding.  it didn't get much coverage at the time, because the media was still in the obama-worship phase.

In mid-February, as the Democratic primary contest between Obama and Clinton moved toward the Rustbelt, the populist rhetoric of both candidates sharpened. Both candidates blamed free trade for factory closings. And in a move that unnerved leaders around the globe and prompted top House Democrats to distance themselves, both Obama and Clinton vowed to opt out of America's most important standing free-trade agreement, NAFTA. The pact linking Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into a North American free-trade zone was Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment, but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of unions, liberal activists, and plenty of angry Midwesterners looking for a root cause of factory closings.

Obama jumped right into the antitrade waters with Clinton, calling NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake" - even though a 2005 Congressional Research Service study showed the pact had a mild positive effect on the U.S. and Mexican economies. Obama's own advisor, Goolsbee, had argued that America's wage gap was the result of a globalized information economy - not free trade.

There were signs back then that Obama's view was more conflicted. On Feb. 8, Goolsbee met with the Canadian consul general in Chicago and offered assurances that Obama's rhetoric was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," according to a Canadian memo summarizing the meeting and obtained by Fortune. "In fact, he mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off as too protectionist."

With the primary contest over, I asked Obama to clarify his remarks on NAFTA. "I think that sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he concedes. Did his? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself." During a debate before the Texas and Ohio primaries, Obama said, "We should use the hammer of a potential opt-out" to force Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA. Now, however, he says he doesn't plan to unilaterally reopen NAFTA, that he had just spoken with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that morning (Harper had called to congratulate him on the nomination), and that "I'm looking forward to a conversation with him. I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people."

 http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/2...

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search