by E. J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
29 May, 1998
Some of what happens in politics is hidden in plain sight. Last week, President Clinton announced a major shift in America's approach to global economics. His ideas would affect how workers and the environment gain protection and whether trade issues are settled in the open or in secret. Almost nobody paid attention.
Clinton's announcement came in a speech before the World Trade Organization in Geneva. There was a time when the address would have been front-page news. It was, for one thing, a direct response to critics of the WTO who accuse it of bowing to the wishes of powerful international companies and making its decisions without any public accountability.
Clinton said that on the matter of secrecy, at least, the critics are right. "We must modernize the WTO by opening its doors to the scrutiny and participation of the public," Clinton declared. "Today, when one nation challenges the practices of another, the proceeding takes place behind closed doors. I propose that all hearings by the WTO be open to the public." Clinton promised that the United States would open any proceeding it is part of and challenge other countries to do the same.
For good measure he proposed that private citizens be able to present their views before the WTO -- meaning that business or labor people, Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan, environmentalists or anyone else could raise a ruckus when they thought vital issues were at stake. Since international organizations now play such a big role in every nation's economy, how can the basic right to petition and air grievances be denied?
Calling on the WTO to work more closely with environmentalists and the International Labor Organization to lift standards, Clinton directly borrowed rhetoric from critics of his past trade policies: "We must do more to ensure that spirited economic competition among nations never becomes a race to the bottom -- in environmental protections, consumer protections or labor standards. We should be leveling up, not leveling down." Clinton acknowledged with unusual bluntness that without such protections, "we cannot build the necessary public support for the expansion of trade. Working people will only assume the risk of a free international market if they have confidence that the system will work for them."
That Clinton's speech got so little coverage may reflect the muffling of his voice by scandal news. But it demonstrates for certain the eclipse of trade as a major public issue after last year's defeat of authority for the president to negotiate trade deals on a "fast track." In fact, Clinton's new proposals are a direct response to the defeat of fast track. They grow out of continuing discussions between Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and a group of House Democrats. Some of Rubin's interlocutors -- Rep. David Bonior of Michigan, for example -- were sharply critical of Clinton's old approach to trade. But many of them, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi of California and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, are also interested in a "third way" that accepts global markets as a reality but seeks, as Frank put it, "globalization plus civility."
On trade, says Frank, "the president and the Democrats realize there's a fundamental intellectual tension. We're not for trickle-down domestically. Why should we be for trickle-down internationally?" Thus the importance of Clinton's "leveling up" rhetoric. "We're not saying no to internationalism," Frank says. "We're saying you have to do it with offsets for inequality." Another sign that foes of Clinton's past trade policies see him responding to their views came from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. He praised the speech as "a dramatic turning point in the debate over the rules of globalization."
Commerce Secretary William Daley -- a free-trader who served as the administration point man on the North American Free Trade Agreement -- acknowledged in an interview this week that "some of our friends on the far right and far left" regard the WTO as "some sort of Trilateral Commission," a powerful body that makes important decisions in secret. "If we're going to depend on international organizations," Daley said, referring to the WTO and International Monetary Fund, "we'd better not only start defending them but also deal with the legitimate problems that have come up. . . . We're trying to get this debate on a different level."
Forging a new consensus around global growth with equity would be a major achievement. But the resounding silence that greeted the president's speech suggests that the road there will be long and that there may be limits on Clinton's ability to lead the journey.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 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.
