Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Trade agreement a win-win situation

The Spokesman-Review

The imminent vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement has whipped up a lot of fears, but the deal looks like a winner for both sides.

The United States would be aiding its economy with the removal of tariffs on most exports and promoting its security by helping to solidify fledgling democracies in Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Meanwhile, those nations can expect to see a 4.4 percent growth in their gross domestic products, according to a University of Michigan study.

Two groups that oppose the trade agreement approach it from different directions. Those who fear one-world government say CAFTA-DR is yet another step toward the United States surrendering its sovereignty. Social justice groups worry that the deal doesn’t assure that the wealth accrued by the six countries will be equitably distributed.

The first complaint is a rehash of concerns over NAFTA in the 1990s. The United States hasn’t surrendered control to other nations since the inception of that much larger trade deal, so it’s difficult to see that happening with this one. Besides, the United States can pull out of any trade agreement if it so chooses. Other nations cannot dictate our laws and vice-versa.

U.S. social justice groups want to be able to effect changes in other countries, but to do that they seek provisions that would infringe on their sovereignty. However fragile, the six nations under CAFTA-DR are democracies. The elected leaders of those governments have chosen to pursue this trade deal and to try to build their economies using the principles of free trade.

What’s more, the defeat of CAFTA-DR won’t bring those social-justice goals any closer to fruition. In that scenario, the big winner would be the totalitarian nation of China, because it would maintain its grip on world textile production. CAFTA would allow Central American countries that pay better wages than China to compete, and it would show that the United States is serious about promoting democracies around the world.

Still, CAFTA-DR would produce winners and losers, and some congressional members are exploiting that fact to secure protectionist measures. The entire Idaho delegation is against CAFTA-DR, because it doesn’t sufficiently protect sugar beet farmers from Central American competitors. But, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, sugar beets make up only 5.4 percent of total farm income in the state. Most Idaho farmers would benefit from the lifting of tariffs on exports. Most farm groups, including the American Farm Bureau, support CAFTA-DR. And lower sugar prices would benefit consumers.

The Washington delegation is solidly behind CAFTA-DR, which is not surprising given the fact that the state is the most trade dependent in the nation. NAFTA was a boon to Washington exports. State industries already do big business in Central America and the lifting of tariffs will expand on that.

The noisy fears of a few should not obscure the fact that free trade helps more people than it hurts.