It is generally assumed that
Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump will be the nominees, respectively, for the Democratic and Republican parties in the November 8 presidential election. If they each hold to their current opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, and certainly if they ramp up the anti-TPP rhetoric as they well might, then, no matter who wins in November, the conclusion will be that the America voted against TPP. In such a situation, passing TPP in a lame duck session, that is, after the election, would be a slap in the face of American voters. I believe such a vote would be a mistake.
But the election hasn't happened yet. No one in office today has any real basis for assuming that America writ large is opposed to TPP. What they do have is the obligation that they have had since they were elected: a duty to vigorously pursue whatever course seems to them to be in the best interest of the United States. In other words, in terms of electoral morality (if there is such thing), a TPP vote before the election would be perfectly legitimate. Indeed, it should be an imperative.
Today, of course, a vote before November 8 seems extremely unlikely. Unfortunately, not having such a vote will in no way mitigate the consequences of not having the agreement. The U.S. will simply be left behind. Its companies will increasingly face harsher conditions in the critical markets of the Asia Pacific. Their exports will face higher duties than those of their competitors, their inventions and trade secrets will be more easily stolen, and America's standard of living will suffer. So too will its standing in the world.
***
I made my first trip to South Korea in 1997. I needed a visa, and went to the Korean Embassy to hand in my application. I also had to hand over my passport. Having done so, I asked for a receipt. I didn't get one. Rather, the young woman in the clerk's cage said to me, somewhat curtly, "This is the Korean Embassy. We're not going to lose your passport." And they didn't. Everything went off without a hitch.
That small episode begs the much larger question: how many times have American officials - soldiers, diplomats, and trade negotiators - said to people, "You can trust us. We are the United States of America." The fact that life has sometimes made a mockery of those words shouldn't be an excuse for giving up on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. It should be a cautionary tale, an incentive to keep faith with our trading partners.
To be clear, the final decision belongs to Congress, and keeping faith does not mean assuring Congressional approval of this agreement or any other. But it should mean a timely vote, and if there is no vote before November 8, it is likely to be a very long time before there is one.
***
To return briefly to the current election, the idea of thinking of it as being even partly about trade is almost sad. In my memory, the election that really was about trade was the Canadian election of 1988. The big issue was Canada's pending free trade agreement with the United States. The government of
Brian Mulroney had negotiated the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and he was defending it. The other two parties, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party were opposed. But at least both sides were represented. In the looming contest between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, it appears that no one will be speaking up for trade and all that America gains from it.
Editorial note. As I have said on many occasions, the Global Business Dialogue does not take collective positions, and the opinions expressed in these pages are those of the writer, not the organization. Still, as a rule, I prefer the editorial "we" to the first person singular. One reason for that preference is that, although the opinions are strictly speaking mine, when I write them, I am usually looking over my shoulder a bit at the interests of GBD members. The Comment section of today's entry, however, is purely mine and mine alone, and so for today I have dropped the mask of "we."
R K. Morris
