A trade policy based on values

For years, the labels of “protectionism” versus “free trade” have divided us and stymied insightful discussions that could lead to a stronger, more responsive, consensus-driven U.S. trade policy.

These labels now whirl around discussions about pending agreements that are one focus on how Congress should proceed these next weeks.

New trade policies must be based on abiding values, not rigid doctrine or presumed schedules.
Let us envision U.S. trade policy “as it should be” and not “as it is.”

First, the value of internationalism. We live in a rapidly globalizing world and trade is vital and irreversible. It must not be an end in and of itself.

There is a new landscape out there — developing nations newly involved, new technologies and new challenges — not adequately addressed by old policies.

Second, the value of activism. We must both expand trade and shape the rules of competition.

Because the conditions are more complex and the results not automatic, we can’t assume they will be win-win. The goal of trade policy should be more than simply more, but how the more will work out. We must shape trade policies themselves to maximize the benefits and minimize the downsides in order to fully spread trade’s benefits.

Third, the value of work. Trade is not academic to U.S. businesses and workers, so our trade policy must be vigorous and responsive enough to earn their confidence that we are standing up for their interests in the global marketplace.

Too often pundits focus on their fears of new policies rather than their foresight. U.S. workers and businesses have long known that worker rights and environmental issues in other countries have an impact on the terms of competition.

In this respect some progress was made this year, but the pending trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama do not meet the standards set by a new Democratic trade policy that we have been striving toward for a decade. We have described in detail the substantive shortfalls existing with those agreements and conditions on the ground in those countries. For years, we have cautioned the Bush administration against pressing for a vote on the Colombia agreement before addressing these very serious concerns.

Those who are now trying to force a decision on this and other outstanding trade agreements should instead be preparing how to sit down with a new administration with new ideas. This is the best way to save important positive aspects of those agreements.

To do anything else at this point will be trying to fit square pegs through round holes.

Finally, the value of some humility.

A comprehensive new trade policy will not be easy to devise. A fresh look will lead to some surprising results and may upset some apple carts on all sides. This is inherent in facing the challenges of globalization but vital in meeting them.

Levin chairs the House Ways and Means Committee’s trade subcommittee.