Kaylara
April 24th, 2001, 12:24 PM
By Dana Milbank and Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 22, 2001; Page A01
QUEBEC CITY, April 21 -- President Bush vowed today that he would win new trade negotiating powers from Congress by the end of the year, using a gathering of Western Hemisphere leaders to make a case for free trade to skeptical Americans.
On the second day of the 34-nation Summit of the Americas, the president and his advisers seemed eager to counter the impact of anti-globalization protests that had disrupted Friday's session and had grabbed public attention from the summit's pro-trade agenda. They acknowledged the need to address some of the issues raised by their critics, in particular workers' rights and environmental protection, which Bush said deserved a commitment "matched" by the commitment to open trade. But they also stepped up their rhetoric about the virtues of barrier-free trade and investment among nations.
Stating the case in his weekly radio address for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would dramatically reduce barriers to trade among nations from the Canadian Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, Bush declared: "The people of Canada, Mexico and the United States have benefited greatly from the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA has created good jobs in all three nations. Now we must extend those opportunities to all with a free trade agreement for the entire Western Hemisphere."
The gathering in Quebec City took on a more businesslike tone today, as nearly 30,000 anti-globalization demonstrators, some quelled by police using tear gas and water cannons, failed to disrupt meetings as they had Friday. Demonstrators threw various objects and breached parts of the barricades encircling the center of the city, but authorities maintained the upper hand.
Even within the meeting hall, there was some dissent about the progress of free trade. Prime Minister Kenny Anthony of the Caribbean island of St. Lucia, speaking after Bush, said globalization has "brought prosperity to some, but we cannot deny it has destroyed the lives of others. . . . Until the hemisphere as a whole can enjoy the fruits of trade liberalization, we cannot proclaim its glory; until all the peoples of the Americas are free from hunger and fear of unemployment, we cannot celebrate the benefits of trade liberalization."
By setting a timetable for achieving "fast-track" negotiating powers on trade, Bush elevated the prominence of the issue, which faces strong opposition in Congress from many Democrats and some Republicans.
In another escalation of the administration's case for negotiating authority, which requires Congress to approve or reject trade treaties without amending them, Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick made an impassioned case about the benefits of free trade.
"This is something you haven't heard much about from the U.S. government since NAFTA was passed, and I think you're going to hear a lot more about it," Zoellick said today. He cited "conservative estimates" showing that NAFTA, combined with the 1995 Uruguay Round of global trade negotiations, has increased U.S. national income by $40 billion to $60 billion a year. Combined with lower prices that the agreements generated for such imported items as clothing, the average American family of four had gained $1,000 to $1,300 from the two pacts, he asserted.
Referring to the protectionism of the 1930s that deepened the Great Depression, Zoellick said, "We do face a choice: whether we move forward or repeat the mistakes of the past."
To soften opposition to trade liberalization, Bush outlined a series of proposals to improve education and the environment, fight drug trafficking and AIDS, respond to natural disasters and encourage international cooperation. Bush also said he might be willing to increase funding for tropical forest conservation.
He also addressed the main Democratic objections to trade treaties, such as NAFTA: the lack of strong, enforceable provisions requiring participating countries to meet minimal standards on workers' rights and the environment. "Our commitment to open trade must be matched by a strong commitment to protecting our environment and improving labor standards," he said.
But the president showed no sign of bending on the crucial question of whether labor and environmental provisions would be enforced by sanctions, as Democrats are demanding. He said in response to a reporter's question that he did not want such matters to defeat free trade agreements, because, he said, open trade fosters economic growth. "Trade and clean air, and trade and labor conditions -- good labor conditions -- go hand in hand," he said. "It's the poor nations that have trouble dealing with labor conditions. It's the poor nations that have trouble meeting their obligations to environmental quality."
Zoellick, expanding on this idea, said an "incentive system," rather than sanctions, might be instituted to help improve foreign labor and environmental standards. He said the United States was pushing for a provision in the FTAA that would prohibit countries from easing their labor or environmental standards to attract foreign investment. But he said most developing countries have told U.S. officials they would find sanctions to enforce such provisions "objectionable."
The president coupled these incentives with a blunt message about the need for the "trade promotion authority" to negotiate trade agreements; without this authority, foreign countries have little reason to reach agreements only to have them rewritten by Congress. "When I return to Washington, I will put forward a set of principles that will be the framework for more intense consultations with Congress," Bush told the leaders in remarks this morning. "I'm committed to attaining trade promotion authority before the end of the year. I'm confident that I will get it."
To demonstrate their willingness to listen to alternative points of view, Zoellick and several of his counterparts from other countries attended a round-table meeting with "civil society" groups -- mostly nongovernmental organizations advocating labor, environmental, human rights and other interests. But the groups that were invited tended to be among the least militant critics of the open trading system; they included, for example, Transparency International, which lobbies for tough anti-corruption rules, and a Canadian association of universities and colleges.
"Who are these people?" asked a scornful Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch, a Ralph Nader-founded group, as she watched a broadcast of the meeting. "I just left all the heads of real environmental and labor groups in the streets. These people don't represent anyone."
After a morning round of speeches and a session with President Vicente Fox of Mexico, Bush spent the afternoon in informal meetings with leaders and in a ceremonial photograph, reception and dinner. Bush and Fox were getting along so famously that the two rode in the same limousine to one event, and Bush announced that Fox would be the guest for Bush's first White House State Dinner.
Bush appeared to be generally at ease in his first international conference, betraying only a few signs of rookie mistakes. He called Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada, who speaks French and English, "amigo," and during his speech he read HIV-AIDS as "H-I-V-A-I-D aids."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47394-2001Apr21.html
Kaylara
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 22, 2001; Page A01
QUEBEC CITY, April 21 -- President Bush vowed today that he would win new trade negotiating powers from Congress by the end of the year, using a gathering of Western Hemisphere leaders to make a case for free trade to skeptical Americans.
On the second day of the 34-nation Summit of the Americas, the president and his advisers seemed eager to counter the impact of anti-globalization protests that had disrupted Friday's session and had grabbed public attention from the summit's pro-trade agenda. They acknowledged the need to address some of the issues raised by their critics, in particular workers' rights and environmental protection, which Bush said deserved a commitment "matched" by the commitment to open trade. But they also stepped up their rhetoric about the virtues of barrier-free trade and investment among nations.
Stating the case in his weekly radio address for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would dramatically reduce barriers to trade among nations from the Canadian Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, Bush declared: "The people of Canada, Mexico and the United States have benefited greatly from the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA has created good jobs in all three nations. Now we must extend those opportunities to all with a free trade agreement for the entire Western Hemisphere."
The gathering in Quebec City took on a more businesslike tone today, as nearly 30,000 anti-globalization demonstrators, some quelled by police using tear gas and water cannons, failed to disrupt meetings as they had Friday. Demonstrators threw various objects and breached parts of the barricades encircling the center of the city, but authorities maintained the upper hand.
Even within the meeting hall, there was some dissent about the progress of free trade. Prime Minister Kenny Anthony of the Caribbean island of St. Lucia, speaking after Bush, said globalization has "brought prosperity to some, but we cannot deny it has destroyed the lives of others. . . . Until the hemisphere as a whole can enjoy the fruits of trade liberalization, we cannot proclaim its glory; until all the peoples of the Americas are free from hunger and fear of unemployment, we cannot celebrate the benefits of trade liberalization."
By setting a timetable for achieving "fast-track" negotiating powers on trade, Bush elevated the prominence of the issue, which faces strong opposition in Congress from many Democrats and some Republicans.
In another escalation of the administration's case for negotiating authority, which requires Congress to approve or reject trade treaties without amending them, Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick made an impassioned case about the benefits of free trade.
"This is something you haven't heard much about from the U.S. government since NAFTA was passed, and I think you're going to hear a lot more about it," Zoellick said today. He cited "conservative estimates" showing that NAFTA, combined with the 1995 Uruguay Round of global trade negotiations, has increased U.S. national income by $40 billion to $60 billion a year. Combined with lower prices that the agreements generated for such imported items as clothing, the average American family of four had gained $1,000 to $1,300 from the two pacts, he asserted.
Referring to the protectionism of the 1930s that deepened the Great Depression, Zoellick said, "We do face a choice: whether we move forward or repeat the mistakes of the past."
To soften opposition to trade liberalization, Bush outlined a series of proposals to improve education and the environment, fight drug trafficking and AIDS, respond to natural disasters and encourage international cooperation. Bush also said he might be willing to increase funding for tropical forest conservation.
He also addressed the main Democratic objections to trade treaties, such as NAFTA: the lack of strong, enforceable provisions requiring participating countries to meet minimal standards on workers' rights and the environment. "Our commitment to open trade must be matched by a strong commitment to protecting our environment and improving labor standards," he said.
But the president showed no sign of bending on the crucial question of whether labor and environmental provisions would be enforced by sanctions, as Democrats are demanding. He said in response to a reporter's question that he did not want such matters to defeat free trade agreements, because, he said, open trade fosters economic growth. "Trade and clean air, and trade and labor conditions -- good labor conditions -- go hand in hand," he said. "It's the poor nations that have trouble dealing with labor conditions. It's the poor nations that have trouble meeting their obligations to environmental quality."
Zoellick, expanding on this idea, said an "incentive system," rather than sanctions, might be instituted to help improve foreign labor and environmental standards. He said the United States was pushing for a provision in the FTAA that would prohibit countries from easing their labor or environmental standards to attract foreign investment. But he said most developing countries have told U.S. officials they would find sanctions to enforce such provisions "objectionable."
The president coupled these incentives with a blunt message about the need for the "trade promotion authority" to negotiate trade agreements; without this authority, foreign countries have little reason to reach agreements only to have them rewritten by Congress. "When I return to Washington, I will put forward a set of principles that will be the framework for more intense consultations with Congress," Bush told the leaders in remarks this morning. "I'm committed to attaining trade promotion authority before the end of the year. I'm confident that I will get it."
To demonstrate their willingness to listen to alternative points of view, Zoellick and several of his counterparts from other countries attended a round-table meeting with "civil society" groups -- mostly nongovernmental organizations advocating labor, environmental, human rights and other interests. But the groups that were invited tended to be among the least militant critics of the open trading system; they included, for example, Transparency International, which lobbies for tough anti-corruption rules, and a Canadian association of universities and colleges.
"Who are these people?" asked a scornful Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch, a Ralph Nader-founded group, as she watched a broadcast of the meeting. "I just left all the heads of real environmental and labor groups in the streets. These people don't represent anyone."
After a morning round of speeches and a session with President Vicente Fox of Mexico, Bush spent the afternoon in informal meetings with leaders and in a ceremonial photograph, reception and dinner. Bush and Fox were getting along so famously that the two rode in the same limousine to one event, and Bush announced that Fox would be the guest for Bush's first White House State Dinner.
Bush appeared to be generally at ease in his first international conference, betraying only a few signs of rookie mistakes. He called Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada, who speaks French and English, "amigo," and during his speech he read HIV-AIDS as "H-I-V-A-I-D aids."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47394-2001Apr21.html
Kaylara