Free trade talks in Miami officially ended a day early with a watered-down compromise.
In reality, the talks aimed at pushing toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas stalled in September during a World Trade Organization meeting in Cancun, Mexico. For that matter, the ambitious FTAA proposal has been doomed since the late 1990s by economic crises across the hemisphere. It's just that no one wanted to admit it.
The question facing free traders at the moment is simple: What now?
Do they continue ignoring reality with more face-saving bargaining, further diluting the FTAA until it is nothing but a meaningless accord? Or do they embark on true hemispheric leadership?
All who want to see a resurgence of prosperity in the hemisphere, a commitment to democracy and market reforms should hope for the latter.
Leadership means calling for a reassessment. It means acknowledging the concerns that have forced the so-called FTAA Lite plan, a way-too-flexible program that allows countries to pick and choose what parts of the economic menu they want. It means setting an "all for one, and one for all" attitude, backed by a comprehensive and inclusive strategy for economic integration.
Free traders must acknowledge that an FTAA must produce an agenda addressing the debt crisis, fears of job losses in the United States and erosion of environmental regulations -- as well as tariff and property rights issues.
They must take the following actions:
Push the deadline back to Jan. 1, 2010. That would allow time for the hemisphere's governments to develop necessary strategies to deal with the hurdles that block progress on the FTAA.
Resolve the debt crisis so governments in the Americas would have more money to invest in infrastructure and technology.
Create a development fund similar to the one the European Union instituted to help close the gap between the strong and weak in the Old World prior to the continent's integration.
U.S. negotiators, led by Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, should be commended for reading the tea leaves properly at the Miami meeting. Accepting a compromise was better than risking another public break with its hemispheric peers.
Problem is they will be facing the same walls going forward. Unless, of course, they resolve the concerns that put up the barriers. If they do that, the 2003 ministerial meeting in Miami will go down as a watershed for free trade, not a retreat from it.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.