Obama would have opposed NAFTA, CAFTA and China’s membership of WTO

Analysts who criticized Obama's trade policies as protectionist and silly were themselves attacked for taking mere campaign rhetoric too seriously. Jagdish Bhagwati in the FT offered five reasons to be reassured about Obama's trade credentials. But it's impossible to be sanguine about the remarks in this speech to the AFL-CIO in Pennsylvania. If he means them we should be worried by his bizarre, conspiratorial view of United States trade policies. If he says these things but doesn't believe them then we can be no less worried (about the credibility of his platform).

"Now, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that we can't stop globalization in its tracks and that opening new markets to our goods can help strengthen our economy. But what I refuse to accept is that we have to sign trade deals like the South Korea Agreement that are bad for American workers. What I oppose - and what I have always opposed - are trade deals that put the interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of Americans workers - like NAFTA, and CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China."(Remarks to the AFL-CIO)

China eventually joined WTO because the US Congress agreed that the USA, like all other countries, should extend WTO's 'most favored nation' treatment (called 'permanent normal trade relations' in the US law) to China. It was the only choice that made sense, then or now, in economic or foreign policy terms. It was a massive, direct and immediate benefit to US consumers (and a win for poor people in China, too).

But Barack Obama promises that he would not have taken that decision—a promise I find difficult to believe—because it was made in 'the interests of multinational corporations': a proposition that deserves no credit whatever.

I found a reference to Obama's speech containing this awful idea on Ben Muse's site: The Customs House.

Tags for this entry: trade wto china obama nafta