Hillary Clinton really wants to improve America’s standing abroad
Last week I asked which major party was going to be more trade-friendly. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton provided part of the answer. The Financial Times’ Edward Luce summarizes: Hillary Clinton, frontrunner for the Democratic party?s presidential nomination, on Monday said that all US trade agreements should be evaluated every five years and, if necessary, amended. The ...
Last week I asked which major party was going to be more trade-friendly. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton provided part of the answer. The Financial Times' Edward Luce summarizes: Hillary Clinton, frontrunner for the Democratic party?s presidential nomination, on Monday said that all US trade agreements should be evaluated every five years and, if necessary, amended. The process should start with the North America Free Trade Agreement, which was the signature trade pact of her husband, Bill Clinton, when he was president. The comments, which were aimed at union leaders who remain critical of Nafta, which they say has displaced US workers, amount to her strongest break so far with Mr Clinton?s pro-free trade agenda of the 1990s. Mrs Clinton said Nafta suffered from ?serious shortcomings?. She also reiterated her pledge to incorporate strong environmental and labour protections in future trade deals ? a measure most economists view as protectionist. ?I think it is time that we assess trade agreements every five years to make sure they?re meeting their goals or to make adjustments if they are not,? she said in a speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which stages the first caucus vote in the presidential nomination process next January. ?And we should start by doing that with Nafta.?.... In addition to the five-year trade reviews, Mrs Clinton said she would appoint a federal trade enforcement officer who would monitor compliance with trade agreements. Click here for more details (it's not all bad; the proposal to expand trade adjustment assistance to cover service-sector workers makes sense). For a party that claims it wants to burnish America's image abroad, the Democrats sure know how to propose specific steps that will piss off our trading partners. Seriously, if this kind of review is proposed, what incentive would any country have to sign an FTA with the United States? The major benefit of a free-trade agreement with the United States is less economic than political. An FTA increases the certainty of the bilateral relationship. Clinton's "review process" essentially strips away that certainty. Does Hillary Clinton really want to return Mexican-American relations to the bad old pre-NAFTA days? As for a "trade enforcement officer," this is the trade equivalent of Michael Dukakis' pledge from 1988 to balance the federal budget deficit through improved tax collection. It's nice politics, but it ain't going to mean a damn thing in terms of reducing the trade deficit or protecting American jobs. Look, trade expansion does have distributional effects, and it makes sense to expand programs that try to compensate for those effects. Clinton's ham-handed idea is not the answer, however. This will play great on the hustings and contribute to an eroding image of the United States abroad. Clinton should -- and does -- know better.
Last week I asked which major party was going to be more trade-friendly. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton provided part of the answer. The Financial Times’ Edward Luce summarizes:
Hillary Clinton, frontrunner for the Democratic party?s presidential nomination, on Monday said that all US trade agreements should be evaluated every five years and, if necessary, amended. The process should start with the North America Free Trade Agreement, which was the signature trade pact of her husband, Bill Clinton, when he was president. The comments, which were aimed at union leaders who remain critical of Nafta, which they say has displaced US workers, amount to her strongest break so far with Mr Clinton?s pro-free trade agenda of the 1990s. Mrs Clinton said Nafta suffered from ?serious shortcomings?. She also reiterated her pledge to incorporate strong environmental and labour protections in future trade deals ? a measure most economists view as protectionist. ?I think it is time that we assess trade agreements every five years to make sure they?re meeting their goals or to make adjustments if they are not,? she said in a speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which stages the first caucus vote in the presidential nomination process next January. ?And we should start by doing that with Nafta.?…. In addition to the five-year trade reviews, Mrs Clinton said she would appoint a federal trade enforcement officer who would monitor compliance with trade agreements.
Click here for more details (it’s not all bad; the proposal to expand trade adjustment assistance to cover service-sector workers makes sense). For a party that claims it wants to burnish America’s image abroad, the Democrats sure know how to propose specific steps that will piss off our trading partners. Seriously, if this kind of review is proposed, what incentive would any country have to sign an FTA with the United States? The major benefit of a free-trade agreement with the United States is less economic than political. An FTA increases the certainty of the bilateral relationship. Clinton’s “review process” essentially strips away that certainty. Does Hillary Clinton really want to return Mexican-American relations to the bad old pre-NAFTA days? As for a “trade enforcement officer,” this is the trade equivalent of Michael Dukakis’ pledge from 1988 to balance the federal budget deficit through improved tax collection. It’s nice politics, but it ain’t going to mean a damn thing in terms of reducing the trade deficit or protecting American jobs. Look, trade expansion does have distributional effects, and it makes sense to expand programs that try to compensate for those effects. Clinton’s ham-handed idea is not the answer, however. This will play great on the hustings and contribute to an eroding image of the United States abroad. Clinton should — and does — know better.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
