(This post is from our new blog: Unofficial
Sources.)
Although
Hillary Clinton went into great
detail extolling
the virtues of President Obama’s proposed trade agreements while
serving as secretary of state, as a candidate for president Clinton has
only offered vague statements about her current position on the deals.
So how would
a President Clinton decide on the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? On Wednesday, White House
spokesperson Eric Schultz said he had not “seen anything to suggest any
distance” between Clinton’s position and the Obama administration on the
deals. And trade consultants close to Clinton remain optimistic about her
support.
Asked about
Clinton’s TPP position at a recent Bloomberg News conference, Jim
Bacchus, former Democratic congressman from Florida, said he is “sure Hillary
will get to all of these things and I think she has a good sense to be for
trade as part of her overall approach to America’s economic future.”
Later at the
same conference, Bob Hormats, who served as Clinton’s under secretary of state,
said he could not speak on behalf of Clinton, but emphasized that his former
boss “understands very clearly that there are enormous trade opportunities in
Asia and creating jobs.”
Hormats now
serves as vice chairman of Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm founded by
Henry Kissinger that advises multinational corporations on trade issues.
In Congress,
Bacchus was a lead negotiator for NAFTA and later served as chief judge of the
World Trade Organization. Bacchus, who now works on trade issues as the Global Practice Chair of
the lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig, said he was the first of
Florida’s congressional delegation to endorse Bill Clinton’s bid for the
presidency, a supporter for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and a strong supporter of
her current presidential campaign.
In New
Hampshire, Clinton recently said,
“Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and
protect our security.” She has also mentioned that she would like to see
currency manipulation as a key
part of the deal.
But
Clinton’s comments have not persuaded TPP critics. Indeed, vague demands
that any deal increase prosperity are more or less identical to the
rhetoric offered by strong TPP supporters. I spoke to Gov. Scott Walker of
Wisconsin last Saturday, who had this to say about the TPP and TTIP (emphasis
added):
Well, I
talked about TTIP the other day in Germany in Hanover at the industrial fair
there, and I think fair and open trade is a good thing on either side of
the continent for the United States, whethere it’s on the Atlantic or the Pacific.
Obvious the details need to be worked out and there’s a lot of details
including some specific to my state that need to be worked out. But I think in
the end, having a deal that’s fair and offers fair and open trade would be a
good thing for the United States and for our trading partners.
Critics of
the deal argue they have been burned by double-dealing by politicians in the
past.
As a
candidate for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama harshly criticized NAFTA on
the campaign trail, claiming he would move to renegotiate the pact as
president. Yet, reporters later uncovered
evidence that Obama’s aides had met privately with Canadian officials to
tell them that Obama’s rhetoric was “more reflective of political maneuvering
than policy.”
No comments:
Post a Comment