Democratic leaders have for years criticized President Bush’s arrogant foreign policy, and promised that things will change if the voters send a Democrat to the White House. One way it will change, apparently, is that our key trading partners will be on probation from day one of Hillary’s presidency. Soren Dayton notes that she has promised to require a review of U.S. trade treaties every five years:
Daniel Drezner points out that U.S. trade agreements are as much political documents as they are economic ones–intended to cement a close relationship going forward. Subjecting them to review every five years would strip away that certainty. Look at the list of countries with which the United States has negotiated Free Trade Agreements: Canada, Israel, Mexico, Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Jordan, Oman, Morocco, Singapore, Peru, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Does Senator Clinton really intend to slap all of these trading partners in the face, by informing them their access to our market can be withdrawn if the United States so chooses? Furthermore, our trade agreements are routinely criticized–seemingly by every candidate on both sides of the aisle–of not being good deals for the United States. But if a trading partner knows that any gain obtained today may be withdrawn in five years, how likely are they to make concessions? Candidates who now complain that American companies lack access to foreign markets can be certain that we will have significantly less if a proposal like this is adopted. One would have hoped that the most experienced candidate in the Democratic field, and the one with the longest resume, would realize the importance of key alliances. Apparently not.
