Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trade a hard sell, top envoy tells state group
The Seattle Times ^ | Aug. 11, 2007 | Kristi Heim

Posted on 08/12/2007 7:31:38 AM PDT by 1rudeboy

The last time the top U.S. trade representative visited Seattle, in 1999, the city was erupting with anti-globalization protests in the streets.

This time, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab found a calm Seattle, but across the country attitudes toward free trade are even more pessimistic than before.

"Trade is becoming a hard sell in the other Washington," Schwab said Friday, addressing the Washington Council on International Trade.

With four free-trade agreements signed by the president and awaiting passage by Congress, Schwab's challenge is to persuade legislators and the U.S. public that the agreements are in their best interest. The bilateral agreements are with Peru, Colombia, Panama and Korea.

Passing the agreements with the three Latin American countries will allow U.S. companies to sell their products to about 75 million consumers duty-free.

Washington agricultural products that could benefit from the deals include fruits, beef, wheat, dairy products and potatoes.

The U.S. trade agreement with Korea could offer similar benefits. It makes two-thirds of U.S. food products duty-free for the Korean market, which imports almost 70 percent of its food. Korea will eliminate its 24 percent tariff on sweet cherries immediately, under terms of the deal, and it will also lift its 29.5 percent tariff on roasted coffee.

The agreement levels the playing field for U.S. technology, which could be important for Seattle companies since Korea is a growing market for software and services, she said.

The trade agreements also give the U.S. strategic advantages in Asia and Latin America.

Signing a major trade deal with Korea gives the U.S. "a major permanent toehold in Asia" at a time when competition with China is growing and Asian regional agreements are being negotiated that could exclude U.S. interests, she said.

(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: susanschwab; trade; wto
"It's much easier to demagogue trade than to defend it," she said.
1 posted on 08/12/2007 7:31:40 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
The experience with China has pretty well sucked the oxygen out of any movement to expand trade.

Free trade should have been tried incrementally, first with common democracies and then within our hemisphere.

Like most anything it tires the Federal government has proven itself to be inept at protecting US interests. We are stuck with a system of trading with Communist slave states and we can't expand trade with our neighbors.

2 posted on 08/12/2007 7:49:02 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
I will continue to point out that we do not have a free trade agreement with China. Nor do I mind China shooting itself in the foot with regard to trade.

If someone wishes to oppose the free trade agreement with South Korea on the basis of China's transgressions, then it probably squarely falls within the comment in #1.

3 posted on 08/12/2007 7:54:36 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Most favoured nation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most favoured nation (MFN), also called normal trade relations in the United States, is a status accorded by one nation to another in international trade. Somewhat counterintuitively, it does not confer particular advantages on the receiving nation, but means that the receiving nation will be granted all trade advantages, such as low tariffs that any third nation also receives.

4 posted on 08/12/2007 8:04:43 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
Free trade agreement From the top of my head, also free

Free trade agreement (FTA), is an agreement between a nation or group of nations that lowers tariffs past the point allowed by most favored nation status (MFN).

5 posted on 08/12/2007 8:17:24 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Yea from little to nothing. Big deal. China has “free” or almost “free” access to our market. as demonstrated by the yearly 300 billion trade deficit we run with them
6 posted on 08/12/2007 8:31:09 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

You know, it would probably be more productive to advocate a set of higher tariffs on China in some other fashion than opposing a FTA with Panama.


7 posted on 08/12/2007 8:40:44 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Where did I say I was against this agreement with Korea? I’m just pointing out the political reality that any and all trade agreements are now DOA even those with neighbors and democracies (as S. Korea is).

Right now most anything that lowers Korea tariffs is probably a good thing. Korean trade was built on the successful Japanese merchantilist model. While they were building up their domestic auto industry they had something like a 300% duty on imported US cars.

I believe S. Korea runs a fairly large trade surplus with the US. I'd rather see my country in a position to say if you want to continue to have access to these markets the tariffs mentioned have to be dropped immediately.

8 posted on 08/12/2007 8:45:21 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
You know, it would probably be more productive to advocate a set of higher tariffs on China in some other fashion than opposing a FTA with Panama.

Good point - just advocate dropping MFN.

9 posted on 08/12/2007 8:47:03 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

I wouldn’t have a problem with that . . . some of our exporters would take a hit, but as is pointed out the trade deficit is substantial.


10 posted on 08/12/2007 8:49:13 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
Where did I say I was against this agreement with Korea?

You didn't. I was unclear.

11 posted on 08/12/2007 8:50:24 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
You know, it would probably be more productive to advocate a set of higher tariffs on China

China is a WTO member. Such a policy would violate the WTO and expose the United States to sanctions.

12 posted on 08/12/2007 8:54:12 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

Whoops . . . forget about that. We need to get started on those safety inspections, then.


13 posted on 08/12/2007 8:58:10 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Whoops . . . forget about that.

As I said stuck.

14 posted on 08/12/2007 9:19:44 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson