Karen Hansen-Kuhn, The Development GAP
Foreign Policy In Focus
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/0012trade.html

In contrast with President Bill Clinton's two electoral campaigns, discussions of U.S. trade policy were nearly nonexistent during the contest between Bush and Gore. This was primarily because the two candidates generally agreed on the need to promote free-trade agreements around the globe. Bush was straightforward about his commitment to trade and investment agreements, unfettered by pesky clauses on labor and the environment. And although Gore did support linking those issues to trade in some way, his proposals were largely unenforceable. Now that the transition to a Bush presidency is actually under way, it is clear that he will press for a rapid expansion of NAFTA-style trade agreements. Whether he can actually achieve that goal will depend on the responses of activists and the Democratic Party to the onslaught of neoliberal policies.

According to Bush, the United States must embrace free trade if it is to continue to be prosperous and competitive in the global economy. He supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and favors its entry (and that of Taiwan) into the WTO as well as the launch of a new round of WTO talks. In reference to the proposed free trade agreement with Vietnam, he stated, "The primary goal of our trade policy should be to open markets abroad, because the better way to raise living and working standards is to increase trade." As American goods and services enter foreign markets, according to Bush, so do American values like freedom, respect for human rights, and democracy. Nonetheless, he supports maintaining the trade embargo against Cuba until the government "frees political prisoners, holds free elections, and allows free speech."

At several points during the campaign, Bush said that he would move more aggressively on trade policy than had the Clinton administration. In a speech at Florida International University in August, Bush declared that he would seek fast-track authority quickly. "When the next president sits at the Americas Summit in Quebec next April," he said, "other nations must know that fast-track authority is on the way... Our goal will be a free trade agreement with all of the nations of Latin America." He added that the United States should negotiate such accords in cooperation with "our NAFTA partners" as well as Chile, Brazil, and Argentina and should work toward free trade with Central American and Caribbean countries. "But the ultimate goal," Bush declared "will remain constant--free trade from northernmost Canada to the tip of Cape Horn."

The latter statement echoes his father's launch of the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative in 1991. It appears from his statement that Bush would favor a series of bilateral trade agreements with the largest economies in Latin America, although nothing he has said rules out continued support for the regional Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which is currently under negotiation. What is clear, however, is that he sees NAFTA as the model for any free trade agreement in the region.

The clearest difference between trade policy under the Clinton and Bush administrations is that Bush makes no pretense that he will support any kind of linkage between labor rights/environmental standards and trade policy. Though most people would argue that Clinton's actual achievements in this area were meager, his administration's rhetoric in support of such a linkage did create an opening for unions, environmentalists, and other social activists to press for greater action on those issues. In some cases, the Clinton administration actually used its leverage to press for greater adherence to labor/environmental standards. In late November, for example, the Customs Service banned clothing imports from a Chinese-owned factory in Mongolia after finding that the company utilized egregious forms of child labor. The AFL-CIO is currently engaged in discussions with the Clinton administration to encourage it to support a recent International Labor Organization (ILO) decision calling for trade sanctions against Burma because of Burma's use of forced labor. Similar discussions with the Bush administration would likely be pointless.

On the other hand, many would argue that Clinton's rhetoric on labor and the environment has distracted the public, as well as some NGOs and activists, from the pro-corporate agenda that is at the core of U.S. trade policy. These lines will be drawn much more clearly in the Bush administration. Given all of the mobilizations already under way in preparation for the Quebec Summit, it is clear that the kinds of protests witnessed in Seattle, Prague, Washington, and elsewhere will continue to expand. Public attention on trade could also shift to the actual social and economic outcomes of those policies rather than remain focused on possible changes at the margins.

The key question now is how progressive people will respond to Bush's trade policies. Congress is likely to receive a fast-track request with either no mention of labor and the environment or one so vague as to be meaningless. There will be very little room for compromise on these issues. If the Democrats maintain their commitment to a meaningful linkage, and if they respond to the solid public opposition to corporate-led trade policy, they could continue to forestall expansion of the stripped down NAFTA model (i.e., without side agreements on labor and the environment) throughout the hemisphere and beyond. In addition, some Democrats who supported fast-track and free trade agreements more out of loyalty to Clinton than from any real belief in free trade may find themselves emboldened to rethink their positions.

If, however, Democrats succumb either to the spirit of "bipartisanship" concerning trade or to pressure from corporate supporters, free trade accords could spread rapidly. We should expect the worst, unless unions, environmentalists, and other trade activists work hard both to keep these issues in the public eye and to hold policymakers accountable.

Civil society groups in this country might take a lesson from their counterparts in Argentina. When the Peronist Party lost power last year, unions and other groups that had allied themselves with the Peronists because of that party's historical support on social issues found themselves on the outside looking in. Now that it is clear that the current government will fully support IMF austerity and adjustment plans in the country, unions and others have carried out a series of massive strikes and public mobilizations against the neoliberal policies. Unions in the Southern Cone claim that the next FTAA trade ministers' meeting in Buenos Aires will also be the site of a "Seattle of the South".

In the U.S., the emergence of an unadorned, unmistakably corporate trade policy could galvanize opposition to free trade agreements and encourage serious discussion about how our trade relations must be redefined to promote equitable and sustainable development.