In a Q & A with the Detroit Free Press, Obama explains that he is for free trade, but he wants the U.S. to do a better job negotiating and he wants labor and environment standards included in trade agreements:
Q: You’ve been accused of flip-flopping on the issue of free trade. Some key advisers of yours — Bob Rubin, Jason Furman — have some strong pro-NAFTA, pro-free trade histories, yet you’ve said some pretty harsh anti-NAFTA things in the primaries and made what you said was a protest vote on CAFTA. … What specifically can and should the country do to distribute what you call the costs and benefits of globalization more equitably?
A: That last point you made is exactly where I stand about free trade. I am a free trade proponent. I strongly believe in it. But I also believe that my job as president is to promote free trade as a tool of American prosperity, and not simply assume that every free trade deal is a good deal for America. It’s not.
If South Korea is sending 400,000-500,000 cars into the United States and we are selling 4,000 (there), that’s not because South Korean cars are so superior to U.S. cars; it has to do with the fact that they are blocking access to their markets. China has consistently stolen our intellectual property. It has not abided by basic copyright protections. … Their manipulations of the currency have made a difference in terms of our trade deficit. So I want trade with China, but I don’t want us to be taken to the cleaners. …
I have a twofold complaint about our trade agreements.
No. 1 is that we just aren’t very good bargainers. I think it partly has to do with we still think this is the 1960s, and we’re such a mammoth market all of these countries out there are sort of vassal states and they are just sending stuff into our country, and it isn’t going to be that big of a deal.
Well, China, Brazil, India and South Korea, these are major competitors, and our trade negotiators have to be tough enough to say there is going to be reciprocity. If you guys want to sell here, then we’ve got to be able to sell there. And, we are going to enforce those trade deals.
Point No. 2, I do believe that our trade agreements should embody labor agreements and environmental standards. Not because I expect that wages in Malaysia are suddenly going to be identical to wages here, but because it sends a message that we are going to try to raise living standards, that we are going to try to expand the scope of environmental protections so that our workers aren’t undermined. But also so other people’s workers are finding themselves with a better quality of life and, over time, become better markets for our goods and services.
The last point I would make about trade. … It is very hard for us to make an argument for free trade if all the benefits go to Silicon Valley or Wall Street or some distant places, and you have the entire heartland being hollowed out. And nobody is really spending time thinking about what is happening to those communities.
Everybody will say, well, we’re going to retrain them. But the truth is, we’ve never been as serious as we need to be about retraining. We’ve never been as serious as we need to be about planning ahead. … What are the new jobs of the future? Where can we start directing our community colleges and our resources so that we are starting to prepare people for these new lines of work?
What kinds of research and development would allow us to take advantage of new areas like nanotechnology or energy? We don’t to that. We haven’t. … As Americans, we have an obligation to think about the losers in trade as much as the winners. They are not disposable. The communities aren’t disposable. These workers aren’t disposable. And that is how they have been treated for too many years. And I intend to stop that.
With regard to the point about getting better deals, is there any basis for this or is it just campaign rhetoric? Has anyone tried to quantify which countries get the best trade deals, and examined whether the U.S. is doing poorly in this regard? I have not heard about it if they have.
On the labor and environment point, here's my question for Obama (which I don't really expect him to answer): if these two are in, and intellectual property is in as well (Obama mentioned it in his answer), what else should be in? What are the boundaries for the subjects that should be included in trade agreements?
