Where Is Obama's Trade Policy?

The New York Times yesterday published an editorial titled "Waiting for a Trade Policy," which noted that presidential backing for a single bilateral trade agreement does not a policy make:

"South Korea is an important ally in a dangerous neighborhood, and the White House should push hard to get this deal finished and through the Senate. It should push just as hard for ratification of pending agreements with Colombia and Peru. But it can't stop there. It must also push for more open global trade bound by multilateral rules and obligations."

There's not much that I can add to that. Except that we are also still waiting for the PSD, the QDDR, and all twelve of USAID assistant administrators (two of the twelve have been named, but not yet confirmed) to help the U.S. government connect the dots between trade, investment, and development. Until then, the three-legged stool -- defense, diplomacy and development -- for promoting U.S. interests internationally is still looking pretty wobbly.

 

Comments

[Enock Zamora]

05:02 PM on 07/07/2010

The President outlined in his speech today on what he has been doing on trade which was on c-span. Much has been done, and will be done. However, because of the tangle web that trade laws have been, it will take time to negotiate just on the existing laws with other Countries. The President has eighteen members on the new trade panel, with ceo's from company's like Boeing. One can go to
c-span 3, and look at his speech today.

[ProudLiberalDan]

03:58 PM on 07/07/2010

Considering how the President threw away his campaign platform on health care, not lifting a finger for any form of public option, and mandating we all have to buy private insurance at whatever rates the corporations collude to charge, under tax penalty with all the enforcement power of the IRS, and considering he appointed and approves of Geitner and Summers directing our economy for the benefit of Wall Street over working people, do you really have to ask what his "trade policy" is?

For both the Republicans and the Democrats, for the Congress and this President, it is whatever the corporate paymasters who fund their campaigns insist that it be.