Copyright 2000 Journal of Commerce, Inc.
Journal of
Commerce
February 24, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: EDITORIAL/OPINION; Pg. 7
LENGTH: 860 words
HEADLINE:
Taking both sides
BODY:
he political-campaign wave
has rolled on, and the rhetorical shot and shell is already flying in other
directions. The public may already be forgetting Vice President Al Gore's
embarrassing efforts to plant himself firmly on both of the opposing sides of
the China trade issue as he seeks the Democratic presidential nomination. No
doubt Gore hopes the affair is soon forgotten.
It shouldn't be. The
ruckus is not only a reminder to voters to be wary of political promises,
although it certainly is that. But it also highlights the intense political
pressures on the approval of the Clinton administration's agreement with Beijing
on China's accession to the World Trade Organization.
And it underscores
the need for the administration and pro-trade forces on Capitol Hill to move
carefully but quickly to win early approval of the accord. The longer that is
put off, the more difficult the issue will become.
The latest China
wrangle began last week when Vice President Gore met privately with leaders of
the AFL-CIO, which has already endorsed him. The AFL-CIO is unequivocal in its
opposition to Clinton's trade agreement with China; they say rejection of the
accord is the centerpiece of their campaign to secure workers' rights in the
global economy.
Participants said the vice president had assured them
that he could bargain a better, more rigorous trade agreement with Beijing - and
would, should Clinton's agreement fail to win approval. AFL-CIO President John
Sweeney told USA Today that Gore declared he wouldn't sign any trade agreements
that failed to address labor standards and environmental protections.
The Clinton administration fumed, but business leaders, who are trying
to mount a strong campaign in support of the accord, erupted outright. The
National Association of Manufacturers said that, if the reports were true, Gore
had ""seriously undermined one of the most important policy initiatives of his
own administration.'' It demanded that Gore clarify his position.
Gore
did - to a lawyerly point. He sent NAM a one-page letter repeating his support
of the China agreement, acknowledging that it would provide "" meaningful
benefits for American workers and companies by expanding and opening the Chinese
market.'' He said Congress should approve, and do so this year.
However,
the vice president didn't retreat too far. Future trade negotiations should
include ""labor and environmental components,'' Gore wrote. And, he added, ""in
the future I will also insist on the authority to enforce workers' rights and
environmental protections in those agreements.''
Such phraseology is
anathema to the Third World, which is ostensibly the object of labor's concern.
It translates there as ""wealthy-nation protectionism.'' And in fact it was a
major factor in sinking the WTO's summit meeting in Seattle three months ago.
But it is popular with Western labor and environmental leaders. And it
can appeal to ordinary Western voters who fear and distrust the change that is
sweeping the world's economy, even as it brings good times to many of them.
The bottom line about trade, however, is that it is a powerful economic
engine for all. As world trade has ballooned over the last half-century, world
output has quadrupled and per-capita world income has doubled, according to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Developing countries have
doubled their exports in the last 30 years alone.
And trade has been an
integral part of the longest economic expansion in U. S. history - an expansion
that may not have affected every sector equally, but that has improved American
life overall.
Consider China. WTO membership won't make a dramatic or
immediate difference in China's domestic or international politics. But expanded
trade will improve life in China - and, more importantly, will increase China's
everyday contacts with the West and Westerners, broadening the Chinese people's
outlook and, ultimately, expectations.
And the long-bargained agreement
between Washington and Beijing paving the way for China's accession to the WTO
provides more for American businesses, farmers and workers than it does for
their Chinese counterparts; America's markets are already largely open. But for
the United States to realize any gains, it must grant China permanent
normal-trade-relations status.
It would be a
pity if short-sighted political concerns were to derail the United States from
such a positive course. But the longer the process takes, the more likely that
becomes. Even well-intentioned maneuvers by trade supporters - various side
agreements proposed in Congress to monitor China's actions, for example, in
return for a yes vote on the trade-status question - are complicating the
picture in the short-term and could hamstring progress in the longer term.
The China agreement is a solid step forward. Vice President Gore's
effort to appease both sides on the issue amount to floundering. Perhaps the
embarrassing spectacle of the latter can help advance the former by putting a
clear spotlight on the situation. Certainly it should spur trade supporters to
greater efforts.
LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2000
