Free trade on track

The latest news out of Geneva should give heart to those who have refused to give up on a bigger and better free-trade agreement among the nations of the world. To be sure, the tentative agricultural deal hammered out by negotiators is no breakthrough, but it does represent a significant victory by free-trade proponents over inertia, pessimism and self-interest.

In Geneva, the United States and the European Union agreed to reduce and, ultimately, to eliminate agricultural subsidies. These amount to nearly $300 billion worldwide and represent an obstacle to the aspirations of developing countries that want to compete on a level playing field. The chief American and European negotiators -- U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick and Pascal Lamy of France -- deserve credit for persuading their national leaders to see that no progress was possible without a deal to roll back subsidies.

Are there problems ahead? Of course. To begin with, Mr. Zoellick agreed to make a 20-percent reduction in the support payments for corn, wheat, rice and soybeans. Inevitably, farm interests will scream. Their first line of defense will be Congress, whose members have never met a subsidy they didn't like.

President Bush deserves credit for the bold moves made by his trade representative. Now, he must push Congress to stop building trade barriers in the form of greater subsidies. Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic challenger, has a duty as well to show by word and deed that, in this election year, his allegiance to free trade is more than campaign rhetoric.

All of this matters to the future of Miami and South Florida. The Free Trade Area of the Americas has been stalled because its own rules must conform with WTO rules. This means WTO negotiators are pathfinders for regional agreements such as the FTAA. Progress in Geneva offers encouragement to FTAA supporters and a challenge to naysayers who should reckon that a free trade agreement is back on track.

Their first line of defense will be Congress, whose members have never met a subsidy they didn't like.

Ya know, it could just be that little pesky matter that we've got to have food eat. Both Parties say they won't hand over our Republic's security to others but they have no problem making us dependent upon others for food. Oh well, it should be cheap -- raw human waste is a lot cheaper than the fertilizer that our farmers use.

a significant victory by free-trade proponents over inertia, pessimism and self-interest

Self interest!? We don't want none of that in the "village!"

Looks like the partnership of New Democrats' Third Way and Republican "free" traders have taken another step toward redistribution of the developed countries' wealth.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay, I guess it's time for American farmers to kick in their share along with American manufacturing workers, IT workers, IT-enabled service workers. . . .

What a deal for "free" traders. Make the one paying for the free lunch pay for the risks and costs of doing business "over there" with taxpayer-backed OPIC, Ex-Im Bank, World Bank. What a deal!

"A key stated goal of agricultural subsidies is food self-suffiency to prevent the shock of rapid price rises in essential groceries. To submit the entire food supply of a nation to the whims of commodity markets is considered a poor idea."

A poor idea, eh? Now I am sure both Parties will do it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.