Imperialism via trade

Dictatorial Trade
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Trade: USTR nominee Ron Kirk mocked the U.S.' expansion of free trade as "deal fever" at his confirmation Monday and vowed to force "social" diktats on trade partners before new pacts can be signed. This isn't free trade.


Unfortunately, dour statements on trade from the man who would be the U.S. trade representative are not surprising. Kirk's a weakened candidate who Congress could reject for tax reasons alone, so he seems to be trying harder to get approval. Problem is, his effort doesn't serve U.S. interests or the job itself.

To gain favor among those who have the power to accept or reject him, Kirk is kowtowing to congressional protectionists, whose real aim is no free trade at all. Kirk has thrown out so many fetters to opening new markets that it's unlikely that any will happen at all.

To start, Kirk dismissed existing free trade treaties as mindless chits instead of carefully negotiated pacts done on an equal basis with other countries. "I do not come to this job . . . with 'deal fever.' We're not going to do deals just for doing so," Kirk told Congress.

That dismisses the fact that free trade has opened vast markets for U.S. companies, whose exports will be key to our economic recovery. Free trade with Mexico increased trade fourfold over the last decade, making it our third-largest trading partner and enabling U.S. companies to sell a billion dollars worth of goods to Mexicans each day. It has put an extra $2,000 in every American family's pocket and increased jobs — one out of four jobs here is now linked to global trade. Frankly, the more pacts, the better.

Kirk also dismissed treaties awaiting passage. South Korea's pact, which would open a market to U.S. exporters as big as Mexico's, was called "simply unfair." Kirk said the U.S. would "step away from that" if South Korea didn't bow to new terms dictated by the Obama administration (and its Big Labor financiers).

Kirk also said that the Korea and Colombia pacts will be subject to "benchmarks" of unspecified detail if they are ever to be approved, adding new conditions onto done deals.
It's not as if these nations haven't jumped through hoops already. Colombia altered its constitution and revamped its court system on the promise of the deal's passage. Now, it's getting new orders.

Wittingly or not, Kirk wants to halt free trade altogether through endless legal delays, and use it as a wedge to foist social engineering agendas onto sovereign states. It's a given that none of these benchmarks will ever meet approval. Korea already says a deal is a deal and it won't take new diktats.

There's a real problem with the administration trying to foist new labor and environmental conditions on other countries for the "privilege" of selling goods and services to us. It puts the cart before the horse, as the nature of trade is for buyers and sellers to benefit each other mutually through comparative advantage. Buyers and sellers turn elsewhere when conditions burden their transactions. Net cost: lost jobs, fewer markets and less global influence.
Trade historically enables human rights by first bringing prosperity and then enabling a middle class to seek more rights. But for Korea and Colombia, the logic is reversed. Democrats insist that these friends become identical to the U.S. in human rights and environmental standards before they even reach U.S.-style prosperity.

Here's the problem with this: It will shrink U.S. markets and cut jobs. We aren't alone. Big countries like China that don't demand that other nations become like them will step into the void. Their markets and influence will expand while ours contract.
If Kirk is happy to become a trade rep with no achievements to show for it and content to fly around looking busy, that's his choice.

But the reality is that if the U.S. foists social projects on friends, rejects new markets, and lets China snap away the spoils, the U.S. will be the biggest loser. Frankly, we deserve better.