[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 4 (Thursday, January 27, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E16]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CLINTON'S SEATTLE STRADDLE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 27, 2000

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, for those who might have missed it, I would 
like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a piece by Robert B. 
Zoellick from the December 14, 1999, issue of the Washington Post.
  Mr. Zoellick brings a unique, knowledgeable perspective to the 
discussion of the recent World Trade Organization fiasco in Seattle. He 
served in various positions in the Bush administration, including a 
stint as Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural 
Affairs, where he was actively involved in developing the nation's 
NAFTA strategy. Recently, Mr. Zoellick was President and CEO of the 
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
  I commend Mr. Zoellick's thought-provoking article to my colleagues' 
attention.

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 14, 1999]

                       Clinton's Seattle Straddle

                        (By Robert B. Zoellick)

       Unlike The Post and others who are grappling with the 
     deeper meaning of the Seattle protests and the World Trade 
     Organization debacle, I think both the message and the 
     results are straightforward: President Clinton, trying again 
     to be all things to all people, is responsible for a failure 
     that has paralyzed further free trade negotiations, whether 
     globally or regionally.
       Clinton wanted us to ``listen'' to the demonstrators. I 
     did. It turns out that the protesters' arguments were 
     contradictory: They wanted both to blow up the WTO and to 
     have the WTO establish a host of global rules to dictate 
     social, economic, political and environmental conditions 
     around the world. They have managed, astonishingly, to 
     combine the aims of unilateralists--who believe the United 
     States can order everyone else in the world to do what we 
     want--with those of globalists--who believe national 
     governments are illegitimate and must be superseded by 
     ``wise'' nongovernmental organizations.
       Nevertheless, while the protesters' arguments were 
     seriously flawed, their logic of action was clear: If they 
     could overburden the process of negotiating more freedom for 
     trade, the negotiations would break down. Then special 
     interests would be successful in maintaining existing 
     barriers and protections. Inefficient producers can now 
     continue to avoid nasty competition and keep costs higher for 
     consumers and other businesses.
       The Post has suggested that ``the truth [about Seattle] is 
     more complicated'' than critics contend. Apparently, it is 
     not enough that President Clinton has been responsible for 
     the confusion and backsliding in America's trade policy 
     despite these times of extraordinary prosperity. It is not 
     enough that Clinton is the first president in 50 years to 
     fail to ensure that America leads the world trading system 
     toward the liberalization that has created unprecedented 
     world growth, openness, creativity and opportunity. No, 
     according to The Post, Clinton was ``right in principle . . . 
     but probably wrong on the tactics.''
       Since the WTO is supposed to be about trade, it might be 
     useful for The Post to recall what trade is about: Trade 
     enables Americans to buy goods and services from other 
     countries; trade liberalization seeks to remove the taxes and 
     other barriers to this freedom of exchange. By expanding the 
     freedom to buy and sell, trade lowers costs, expands 
     opportunities and creates better-paid work--all adding to 
     prosperity. Prosperity, especially for developing countries, 
     is the key to better conditions for workers and to more 
     resources for, and interest in, a clean environment.
       Do fortunate Americans really think that parents in poorer 
     countries prefer to have their children work instead of stay 
     in school? Do they really think poor foreigners want to live 
     in polluted cities? Or might these Americans recognize that 
     the rules that wealthy nations want to impose on poorer 
     nations will be ignored until poor countries have the means 
     to improve their livelihoods?
       The WTO is not a global government with the power to order 
     new environmental or labor laws--or, for that matter, better 
     tax regimes, pension plans, health programs, civilian control 
     of militaries or a host of other meritorious outcomes. The 
     WTO is a forum where governments can negotiate to reduce 
     barriers to trade and agree to rules to try to resolve 
     disputes. We cannot make the WTO into the organization that 
     will deal with all the problems that elected, national 
     governments struggle with every day.
       Let's be honest: Once again, Clinton straddled and 
     stumbled, and others have gotten hurt. Clinton likes to talk 
     about free trade, because he knows open markets and 
     competition contribute to prosperity. But Clinton also wants 
     everyone to like him, especially if the people are his 
     political constituencies. So he chose to host a major 
     international negotiating meeting on trade without laying the 
     political groundwork globally and without developing a 
     negotiating strategy.
        In a negotiation where the United States needed to work 
     with developing countries to open markets for farmers, 
     Clinton scared off the developing world to placate domestic 
     interests. He even sabotaged his own negotiating team by 
     proposing new trade sanctions at a meeting that was supposed 
     to reduce barriers, not add to them. When asked why, 
     according to The Post, a White House aide said, ``He was just 
     talking off the top of his head.''
       The Post, seeking to be broad-minded, finds the truth to be 
     ``complicated.'' I think the truth is simple: After following 
     through in 1993-94 on a free trade agenda left by his 
     predecessor--an agenda he could not abandon without looking 
     isolationist--Clinton, through his intellectual waffling and 
     lack of commitment, severely set back the cause of free 
     trade.

     

                          ____________________