Leading Article: Trade deal the US should not shirk

Tuesday 16 November 1993 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

WHY, Bill Clinton must be asking, is it proving so tough? The United States would undoubtedly benefit from free trade with Mexico and Canada. A few American jobs would be destroyed by the creation of the North American Free Trade Area (Nafta), but barely a significant number in the grand scheme of things. Wages in Mexico, at one-eighth of the US level, are certainly cheap; but that is because Mexican productivity is only a fraction of that of American workers. The Mexican economy, one-twentieth the size of the combined US and Canadian economies, is a mere herring by comparison with the Canadian cod and the Yankee whale.

Add in the trouncing that Vice- President Al Gore gave to Ross Perot in their televised debate on CNN last week, and the presidential carrots that Mr Clinton is able to dangle as he buys votes for the pact in the House of Representatives, and it is tempting to wonder why today's vote in the lower house of Congress remains impossible to call.

In fact, the reasons behind Mr Clinton's difficulties are largely political. It is always easy to identify a company or individual standing to lose from competition; with the larger gains spread more thinly across the country, supporters are less vociferous. Hence the 'politics of negativism and fear' that Mr Gore identified on the Larry King show, and hence the hysteria of the lobbies headed by Mr Perot with his ill-informed populism.

A European perspective can offer good reason to vote in favour of Nafta. In doing so, it would set a precedent for free trade between a rich and a poor country that would help the European Union to open its markets to the former Soviet satellites to the east, and Japan to deal more fairly with the various tigers and dragons of east and South-east Asia. It would also give an impetus to the faltering Gatt negotiations, the successful conclusion of which this winter would bring greater prosperity to the entire industrial world.

These reasons aside, only one argument can convince Americans that Nafta is in their interests. Competition from the south is certainly a threat to those American workers who cannot function more productively and learn new skills more quickly than Mexicans. Yet the great strength of American business - and indeed American society - is exactly its ability to respond confidently to change; to dream up new products to suit new consumers, and new solutions to suit new problems. If that capacity has been lost, then the rejection of Nafta will be only a symptom of wider decline.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in