Obama, GOP can now partner on one project: trade pacts

After this midterm election, a new Republican-led Congress can start to build trust with President Obama by striking a deal on proposed trade pacts with Asia and Europe. The US needs such bipartisanship to spur growth and shape global values.

Reuters
US Trade Representative Michael Froman (L) speaks during the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) meeting of trade representatives in Sydney Oct. 27.

One of America’s gifts has been its spirit of openness, such as in trade or in the exchange of ideas. It should be in that spirit that President Obama and a new Congress controlled by Republicans should open a door to each other – and strike a deal to expand trade with Asia and Europe. 

Such cooperation might set a precedent for the kind of bipartisanship in Washington that many voters sought in the midterm elections. Exit polls revealed a displeasure with both parties.

The world needs US leadership right now to push back against creeping trade protectionism in many nations. More trade would help give a jolt to a sluggish global economy. And China’s model of state-manipulated markets – or mercantilism – needs to be challenged. For centuries, the West’s success in creating free markets has been the main driver for reducing poverty around the world – even in China. 

After the 2010 midterm elections, Mr. Obama and the GOP were able to pass three trade pacts with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. In the same bipartisan spirit, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed in 1994 to pass a pact that set up the World Trade Organization. The United States has a long history of nonpartisan cooperation on free trade, not just for its economic benefit but also the democratic values it helps spread. It is time to revive it again.

Currently, Obama is negotiating two proposed trade pacts. One, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, would expand trade with 12 countries, mainly in Asia, that encompass 40 percent of the global economy. The other, called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, would be between the US and the European Union.

To complete the deals, the president needs Congress to agree that it will allow only an up-or-down vote on each pact. Otherwise countries will not make the compromises needed in such difficult trade talks. In granting the president that authority, the GOP could set a tone of trust that could lead to other compromises on legislation.

Both parties have a stake in ensuring the world continues to draw closer through trade. A recent poll done in 44 countries by the Washington-based Pew Research Center found 81 percent of those surveyed said trade was good for their economies.

As US trade representative Michael Froman said in a recent speech: “US trade policy is a central part of what may be the most consequential strategic project of our time: revitalizing the post-World War II international economic order.” 

A bit more order is overdue in Washington, too.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.