Newsgroups: soc.culture.mexican
From: DowJones@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Clinton Backs NAFTA, But Stances On Issues Aren't Clear
Date: Mon,  5 Oct 1992 11:35:44 -0400 

  

  By Gerald F. Seib  

  WASHINGTON -- Nobody here but us free traders.  

  That's essentially what both Bill Clinton and George Bush say about
themselves in the 1992 campaign. President Bush says he's the candidate
who has an outward-looking economic plan. As proof he offers the North
American Free Trade Agreement, which he and the leaders of Mexico and
Canada will initial Wednesday.  

  Bill Clinton wants the world to know that he's one Democrat who really
is for free trade -- and yesterday he tried to prove it by announcing
that he supports the North American trade treaty. In doing so, he turned
aside strong arguments within his own party that the deal be renegotiated,
The Wall Street Journal reported.  

  But the trade reality isn't nearly this simple -- or this free.  

  Clinton's support of the North American pact comes with big strings
attached. In a speech in Raleigh, N.C., outlining his position, he said
more has to be done to protect the jobs of U.S. workers displaced by
the agreement and to safeguard the environment on both sides of the border.
 

  Clinton said he would ask Congress to take several unilateral actions
to supplement the trade deal. He said lawmakers should provide significant
retraining, health benefits and income supplements to workers displaced
by the agreement; make sure there are adequate laws and investments to
protect the environment; give special assistance to farmers -- including
retraining, aid in shifting to alternate crops and bans on products that
don't meet U.S. pesticide standards; provide ways for U.S. citizens to
protest what they consider unfair governmental actions; and prevent strike-bre-
akers from entering from Mexico or Canada.  

  He also said he would negotiate supplemental agreements with Canada
and Mexico to establish an Environmental Protection Commission and a
commission for worker standards and safety. He pledged to keep talks
open with Mexico to protect the U.S. from any surges in imports that
the agreement might create.  

  As Clinton's careful handling of the North American trade deal suggests,
he heads a Democratic Party containing powerful elements that could over
time tear him away from his free-trade impulses. Though he has resisted
those voices for now, it's far from clear how well he can blend them
with his own -- particularly at a time of high emotions over job losses
and a sluggish economy.  

  "I would hope, and his statements would lead me to believe, that while
he talks about open trading systems, he would regulate trade in ways
which would eliminate the deficits and advantage America in the world,"
says Thomas Donahue, the forceful secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO,
who urges renegotiating the North American trade pact. "The problem with
the free-trade argument is that it is nonsense. There's none anywhere
in the world. What we are doing is negotiating a system for regulating
trade."  

  At the same time, Bush is hardly an unblemished disciple of free trade,
as is seen in the North American trade agreement itself. It runs to 2,000
pages and is filled with provisions designed to protect the auto, textile,
computer and banking industries.  

  "If this were really a free-trade agreement, you ought to be able to
do it in 10 pages," asserts C. Michael Aho, director of economic studies
at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to Democratic
Sen. Bill Bradley.