|
Posted by
Olog-hai
on Fri Feb 15 10:55:43 2013, in response to EUEUEUEUEU Olog, posted by RockParkMan on Sat Nov 12 14:58:17 2011.
fiogf49gjkf0d IBD
Obama's Free Trade With Europe Fraught With Red FlagsPosted 02/14/2013 06:27 PM ETIn his State of the Union address, President Obama announced talks with Europe for the most ambitious trade partnership ever attempted. So how come it doesn't include the words "free trade"?
"Tonight, I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union — because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs," President Obama said in his State of the Union address.
It's hard to think of any greater tonic for two stricken economies than free trade with one other. The U.S. and Europe, the world's two largest economic blocs, account for 45% of global GDP and nearly 40% of all trade, and have been kicking the idea around for decades.
After extensive coaxing of the White House from Germany's pro-market Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K.'s conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are expected to begin on June 18 at the next G-8 meeting in Britain.
But a look at details from both sides of the Atlantic show this disturbing sign: Neither side has free trade as we know it in mind.
For starters, the words "free trade" are curiously missing from its title, something pointed out by a Washington Post reporter in the U.S. trade representative's news conference that followed the president's speech.
"I think we are framing the agreement as one that is more representative of what we are doing, because it is so much broader than trade," said USTR Ambassador Ron Kirk, without much more detail.
But it's important that such detail be there. The Obama administration is notoriously beholden to Big Labor special interests that oppose all free trade pacts in favor of "managed trade" and "fairness" geared toward protecting union inefficiency from foreign competition.
Kirk elaborated that the pact would be more than just getting rid of tariffs. It will address investment issues such as "regulatory coherence" and nontariff barriers to market entry — a disingenuous answer if there ever was one, given that all free trade treaties address those issues.
Deputy National Security Advisor Mike Froman, who was curiously in on that call — as if Kirk needed monitoring — revealed more of what the Obama administration had in mind. "TTIP is really about both figuring out better ways of integrating our own economies, but also working together to establish global rules … vis ŕ vis the broader multilateral trading system."
European Union bureaucrats sounded even more ambitious for that than the trade itself.
"These negotiations will set a standard, not only for our future bilateral trade and investment, including regulatory issues, but for the development of global trade rules," declared European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a news conference Wednesday.
The regularization of rules sounds nice until one realizes it could as easily mean free trade for every nation in equal competition as it could mean protected industries on both sides of the Atlantic, entrenching large non-competitive industries from upstart competition, a formula for stagnation. It's the opposite of free trade.
And that's just one red flag with this announcement.
The fact that the administration wants to rush these talks through before the end of 2014 is not a good sign that any deal will be well-crafted and designed to maximize benefits.
The fact that Kirk is not sticking around for these negotiations but quitting — without a successor — even though his resignation has been known for more than a year, isn't a good sign either.
Free trade holds huge promise for America and Europe. Estimates say it could add as much as 1% to gross domestic product on both sides of the Atlantic.
But that won't come about if it isn't free trade. Is this a real free trade pact, or just the appearance of one? If it is, Obama should say so.
|
