Bush Should Go Ahead and Sign Trade Pact : And Clinton chould seize Salinas’ offer on immigration

You can make a case that the three nations of North America would not be nearly as close as they are to signing a historic free trade agreement were it not for the vision of Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. It was Salinas who violated Mexican political taboos when he approached President Bush with a proposal that Mexico be included in future free trade talks with Canada and the United States after the two northern neighbors signed a free trade agreement in 1988. Bush, a Texas businessman who understood the significance of Salinas’ offer to open up the Mexican economy, eagerly accepted. And the rapid progress toward a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), will remain a real achievement of Bush’s presidency.

ANOTHER RESCUE: But there has been speculation that, with Bush defeated for reelection by Gov. Bill Clinton, the momentum for NAFTA will now slow. Given the importance of free trade to this country, and to the development of Mexico’s enormous economic potential, that would be unfortunate. Riding to the rescue again--with unexpected and even provocative ideas for keeping NAFTA moving forward--is Salinas.

In an interview last week, Salinas said he is eager to have Mexican officials meet with the new U.S. Administration soon after Clinton is inaugurated to discuss NAFTA-related environmental and labor issues. Salinas suggested that the two countries, and Canada, create a permanent commission to discuss differences that arise from NAFTA, modeling it on the commission that the United States and Mexico created under NAFTA to monitor environmental problems along the border.

Salinas, a pragmatic leader widely admired for his willingness to try even radical ideas, also proposed a new issue for future U.S.-Mexico negotiations: immigration. While Mexicans see the migration of workers to the United States in less worrisome terms than many U.S. citizens do, they know it cannot continue in the illegal, haphazard manner that has evolved. Mexican specialists have been trying to come up with plans to deal with the phenomenon--proposals that would protect both the integrity of the U.S. border and Mexican workers from exploitation. Those proposals, for the first time ever, have the considerable clout of the Mexican presidency behind them. Salinas is prepared to start dealing on immigration issues, and Clinton should seize the opportunity.

Though somewhat controversial in all three countries, free trade for the continent is an idea whose time has come. Indeed, NAFTA is really no more than a formal acknowledgment of--and an attempt to regulate--economic forces already pushing the three North American economies closer together. Clinton gave NAFTA only a belated, and qualified, endorsement during the campaign. He said he wanted the treaty to include guarantees for protection of the environment and U.S. workers. That is a reasonable stance. But environmental and labor issues can be dealt with, as Salinas suggests, in implementing legislation rather than by reopening negotiations.

A FAIR EXCHANGE: Bush wisely accepted the offer for a free trade agreement by Salinas, the most pro-U.S. Mexican leader in a generation. Bush also persuaded Congress to put NAFTA negotiations on a diplomatic fast track. After more than a year of intense negotiations, a draft treaty was completed last August. But it has not yet been signed by the heads of state, the step that must be taken before NAFTA can be sent to Congress. One way to keep the momentum for free trade going would be for Bush to sign NAFTA--with Clinton’s acquiescence, if not his blessing--before he leaves office. Given the risks taken so far by Salinas to get things moving, that is the least his U.S. counterparts can do in return.