When is the perfect the enemy of the good on trade?

Back in the day -- when Dick Gephardt was a political candidate talking about the need for trade agreements to have environmental and labor standards, it always seemed likr all Dick and his AFL-CIO allies were trying to do was to make it impossible to pass trade agreements.

Well, arguments have consequences, and now what seemed to be a bogus argument made rescue protectionism from Pat Buchanan, now seems to have grown sincere adherents over the years. And I have to wonder whether, if the US passes Obama-esque trade enforced "governance improvements" (ACK!), whether the US would relish being on the other side of such agreements. Would Europe insist we put in their labor protections, before they lower tariffs? Would they demand our adoption of Kyoto, before free trading with us?

Micromanagement of other countries via trade seems a real offensive thing to do via treaty. Which always makes me why those most scandalized by US unilateralism think it is US trade policy's job to force smaller weaker countries to adopt US standard for everything. Of course, the reason could be simple: all of this argument is still a bogus argument to rescue protectionism from Pat Buchanan.

Drezner, did you see this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/health/research/22tb.html

I wonder what you think about it. For the same of argument, as neither of us have analyzed the data, I prefer you to refrain from arguing that the numbers are incorrect and stick to the issue raised in the report.

Thanks,
joe

I think it's also important to take seriously arguments such as the one made recently by Jagdish Bhagwati that bilateral (or even small, multilateral) trade agreements (CAFTA, NAFTA, etc.) are not moves toward free trade. The original GATT was a free-trade agreement, because it led to all but universal reductions in tariffs (and some other trade restrictions), especially through the "most-favored nation" provisions of the GATT agreements. But I can see no particular reason to provide preferences to trade between the US, Mexico, and Canada, while excluding the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Somalia, Bangaladesh, Singapore,...

Where potential presidents Obama and McCain would stand on all this is anyone's guess.

My own sense is that Obama is more open to arguement, while McCais is more likely to flop around from one position to another.

Thanks for these comments which I agree with. An op ed gives you precious little room to assert the nuances; and an election year gives Democrats little room to manoeuver against some constiuencies such as unions that have never met a trade agreement they like. that said, it is past time to reassess how we use trade to advance human rights. It is true, as Sylvia Ostry, my hero, pointed out, that the US has long used trade agreements to promote transparency, rule of law as well as to bully other nations. But I can tell you that other nations want to copy the US approach on labor rights. It is actually working. Here's why. It increases both the supply of good governance (policymakers know they have to put money and expertise into labor rights) and it bolsters the demand for labor rights (by mandating greater public participation related to labor and the environment..... That said, I don't think bullying is the best way to change hearts and minds and I don't approve of all this emphasis on bilateral trade agreements to the detriment of the WTO. Thanks for reprinting my piece. Susan

Mr. Coffin's comment is a "perfect world" argument. Given the difficulty in getting GATT past, and the failure of the Doha round (as painstakaking documented through this blog) bilateral arrangements might be the only way to get freer trade accomplished.

Of course, if Sen. Obama is elected, the boost in US soft-power and reputation might make things possible internationally that are foreclosed to this administration and likely Sen McCain's.

It is truly an old argument. McCain is of the school that would use the opportunity of a trade agreement with the US as a soft power tool to encourage change. Regimes with little or no willingness to change (Cuba, etc.) have no chance of entering into these lucrative agreements. Obama is of the school that would use the trade agreement itself to foster change. The theory is that we should enter into the agreement with the other country then they will change. This is what I got from the post. As Dr. Drezner stated, that rings hollow from Obama since he supposedly does not like trage agreements in the first place. The argument also loses credibility when NAFTA is trotted out as an example of the latter school of trade agreement. Gosh, yes, we simply MUST force those evil Mexicans and Canadians to encourage labor rights and environmental protection or we will have to see about nullifying NAFTA. What baloney! Are there no genuine leaders left in this country? Are there no objective journalists left, either?

I do not know if Sen. Obama is a protectionist, but Susan Aaronson is pretty clearly a projectionist.

There are many such people where Obama is concerned, people with strong views themselves on specific subjects who are able to convince themselves that general language from the candidate reflects his agreement with them. In fairness, they have little else to go on, given that Obama has next to no record in most areas of public policy.

Now, having no record cuts both ways. There is virtually nothing we've seen throughout the length of this campaign to indicate that Obama has any desire to "...manoeuver against....unions that have never met a trade agreement they like." Industrial unions are one of the organized interests that dominate the Democratic Party, and Obama spent the primaries appealing for their support. He could, theoretically, forget all about that after he's elected. How likely is it that he will? You tell me.

In the hierarchy of "the groups" influential in the Democratic Party, industrial unions were pushed downward during the 1990s, partly because they had come to represent a smaller number of workers but also because other groups strongly supportive of trade liberalization (like the technology and entertainment industries) had organized well enough politically to influence the Clinton administration in the direction of completing work done under Republican Presidents on trade agreements with Mexico, China and Canada. Things have changed; the interests that helped get NAFTA and the China deal passed don't care as much about bilateral deals like the one with Colombia (Doha is a different story, but that is also a much more complicated negotiation), while industrial unions are keen to show they still matter in Democratic politics, and have looked for a sign of this from Democratic politicians. So, the Colombia deal gets a big thumbs-down from Democrats in Congress, including Obama.

Does Obama himself -- as opposed to campaign staff posting items on his web site -- have views on trade independent of the power balance among organized interests active in the Democratic Party? Like a lot of people, I'd like to believe that he does, but I take a hard line against projectionism.

It really does not matter much, both Obama and McCain will screw over American workers for various diplomatic and economic (spelled RICH) objectives.

Obama will use a little vaseline, McCain will not. The Robert Rubin wing of the Dems will keep the government in the pocket of Wall Street.

As far as renegotiating NAFTA, that is like trying to raise the Titanic, a useless effort many years to late.