Well Put on NAFTA, Mr. Secretary

President Clinton can be faulted for waiting too long to make the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada a top priority for his still-new Administration. But now that the decision has been made, the result is an impressive display of high-profile persuasion. Los Angeles got a sample Tuesday when Secretary of State Warren Christopher returned home to promote the potentially historic trade accord.

In his remarks here at a gathering sponsored by Town Hall and the World Affairs Council, the L.A. attorney and diplomat hit just the right balance in arguing the merits of NAFTA. “No issue more clearly illustrates the links between foreign trade and domestic policy,” Christopher said.

He went on to outline the domestic benefits that enactment of NAFTA--which would gradually eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers among the three North American countries over the next 15 years--would have for the national economy: 400,000 new jobs. He also reminded his audience that many of those jobs would be created in California, where 90,000 workers already make a living in foreign trade. If there is a sure-fire way for this state to work out of the economic doldrums, it is more foreign trade, not less.

But befitting a speech made by the nation’s chief diplomat, Christopher’s focus was on the negative implications for foreign policy if NAFTA is rejected when Congress votes this month. That picture is not pleasant.

Defeat of NAFTA would seriously damage U.S. relations with Mexico, slowing not just trade but undermining efforts to cooperate in solving other problems like illegal immigration, narcotics smuggling and cross-border pollution. It would also chill our relations with the rest of Latin America, where many countries see NAFTA as a model for future trade relations with the preeminent power in the Western Hemisphere.

Worse still, rejection of NAFTA would open the door for U.S. competitors in Europe and Asia to fill a vacuum in Latin American trade. “They will not hesitate to gain a foothold where we feared to tread,” Christopher warned.

Indeed, fear is not too strong a word to use in discussing why so many in Congress oppose NAFTA, despite all the sound economic and foreign-policy arguments for the accord. They reflect the fears of protectionists and neo-isolationists who would insulate the nation from a rapidly changing world economy rather than engaging it to compete and win in the best American tradition. As Christopher eloquently concluded, “NAFTA is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that must not be lost.”

Well put, Mr. Secretary. Congress--and most especially the 54 House and Senate members from California who, with a few honorable exceptions, have been waffling on NAFTA--need to listen up and vote for their state. And that means for NAFTA.