- The Washington Times - Tuesday, June 28, 2005

This week the Senate is expected to take up CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The White House is putting heavy pressure on Congress to support this agreement, as it should.

But one cannot help feeling its own missteps on trade got this administration to the point where it must pull out all the stops to gain passage of a very modest trade agreement that probably won’t have much effect one way or another. In previous administrations, this sort of agreement would have been routine, not requiring extraordinary effort to get passed.

The problem for many free traders like myself is the Bush administration has played politics with trade since Day One, which has seriously damaged the fragile alliance that still supports free trade. It imposed utterly unjustified steel tariffs, torpedoed the Doha Round of multilateral trade talks by backing a huge increase in agriculture subsidies, and has never missed a chance to demagogue China for all our trade woes.

Having destroyed the prospects for a multilateral trade agreement, which was supposed to be primarily about eliminating agriculture subsidies, the Bush administration has tried to salvage some semblance of a free trade agenda by pursuing bilateral trade agreements. Such agreements have been concluded with Australia, Chile, Jordan and Singapore. Talks are under way with Bahrain, Morocco, Panama and groups of countries in Africa and South America.

While the amount of activity is impressive, the results are not very great in terms of opening trade. Moreover, the heavy reliance on bilateral trade agreements may create future problems. Economist Anne Krueger, now the No. 2 official at the International Monetary Fund, summarized the case against preferential trade agreements in 1999 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives:

Once countries are inside a trading bloc such as NAFTA or the European Union, they have an incentive to support protection against countries outside the bloc.

Protectionists will use bilateral trade agreements to avoid multilateral agreements, which all economists believe are far preferable. Those who benefit from bilateral agreements will henceforth tend to oppose new multilateral deals. Once a trader has gained access to the market in which he is most interested, he will not want to share those benefits with traders in other countries.

Finally, the resources of organizations like the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office are limited. If they are busy with bilateral agreements, they have no time or political capital left to pursue multilateral agreements.

Jagdish Bhagwati, America’s leading trade economist, has gone so far as to call free trade agreements “a sham” that actually undermine the world trading system. He argues proliferation of such agreements by the U.S. is part of a long-term effort to pursue a unilateral trade policy. “Thanks to the myopic and self-serving policies of the world’s only superpower, bilateral free trade agreements are damaging the global trading system,” Mr. Bhagwati says.

A 2003 study by the Congressional Budget Office found the economic potential of bilateral agreements very limited. It noted NAFTA, one of the largest such agreements, had virtually no effect on the U.S. trade balance with Mexico even after eight years. However, the study also noted there might be important noneconomic reasons to support free trade agreements. For example, they could support U.S. foreign policy objectives and aid democratic forces in countries with which we have such agreements.

Indeed, it would appear foreign policy is the best reason to support CAFTA. It is clearly in this country’s interest to encourage economic growth and reform in Central America even if the economic benefit for us is minimal. It also keeps alive the principle of free trade, which this administration has done so much to undermine.

Still, much more could have been accomplished with CAFTA if the White House had made more of an effort. For example, it could have used this as an opportunity start dismantling the absurd U.S. sugar policy, which keeps domestic prices far above world levels just to enrich a few producers.

Though CAFTA opens the sugar market a little, much more could have been done without making the sugar lobby any more opposed to the agreement than it is anyway.

Free traders have no choice but to support CAFTA. Its failure would be seen as a victory for protectionism and would crush the hopes of economic reformers throughout Latin America. I agree with economist Tyler Cowen: “This is probably a treaty we should pass, but it is not a treaty we should be proud of.”

It shouldn’t have been this difficult. If President Bush had more consistently supported free trade over the last five years, he would now be in a stronger position to get CAFTA approved.

Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide