Clinton’s Huge Win Is Big Vote for Free Trade : U.S. foreign policy begins to take shape--now on to Seattle

In the end, it was the power of the presidency that prevailed--carrying the North American Free Trade Agreement from a hopeful vision to a historic fact. And that is as it should be. For despite the doubts of many members of Congress who voted against the trade pact on the basis of exaggerated fears about its domestic impact, NAFTA was fundamentally a foreign-policy issue. And on foreign affairs and national security, the executive branch usually wins.

Still, for all the emotion it generated before Wednesday’s vote in the House of Representatives, NAFTA represents only a start. But an important start. It lifts tariffs and trade barriers between this country, Mexico and Canada over the next 15 years, allowing all three to better coordinate their trade policies in an increasingly complex and competitive world economy. That will help all three prosper. And a more prosperous Mexico is a better neighbor.

NAFTA is really no more complicated than that, although some of its loudest critics tried to make it a test case of loyalty to organized labor, the environment or even America itself. Although many House members, especially Democrats, deserve credit for voting their consciences in the face of such political pressure, the biggest winner was President Clinton. It was he who took an initiative launched by the man he defeated, George Bush, and made it his own cause because he understood that it fit his own vision that U.S. economic interests must be at the heart of post-Cold War foreign policy.

NOW ONTO APEC: The conference on Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, which began Wednesday in Seattle even as the vote on NAFTA was being cast on Capitol Hill, provides an opportunity for Clinton to bring home the fact that the United States should look east as well as south for future U.S. economic growth and jobs. In fact, the President’s unprecedented meeting this weekend with leaders of more than a dozen Asia-Pacific nations is recognition of the region’s importance and his desire to create a “new Pacific community.”

Clinton’s challenge is to better position the United States with the Asia-Pacific nations to capitalize on that region’s startling growth. By the year 2000, East Asia will surpass North America in market size. For the last two years, trade within the region has outstripped trade across the Pacific. APEC-member economies now make up about 50% of world production and 40% of global trade. Meanwhile, U.S. interests have pulled back in Asia. Our accessibility to Asian markets is typically not on par with the openness of the U.S. markets to imports.

MULTILATERAL PUSH: In putting economic policy at the heart of his Asia-Pacific focus, Clinton is markedly departing from U.S. Cold War policy toward Asia. That policy favored bilateral agreements with Japan and South Korea and other smaller nations rather than a regional or a multilateral approach. Clinton appears to be testing the waters with APEC for a multilateral approach to trade and investment that would embrace such bilateral agreements. APEC may provide a foundation for discussing closer regional ties. But Clinton must be sensitive to concerns of other APEC members.

All of this comes at dizzying speed. The approval of NAFTA--and the APEC summit--suggest how much the world is changing. Not long ago the thought of open markets and trade with Uncle Sam--in many Asian countries as well as in Mexico--would have led to cries of economic colonialism and imperialism. No more. People around the world are getting more sensible about the ties that bind. One vote in Washington does not make a trend. And the APEC summit may well end up with more hot air than accomplishments. But for those who believe good trade relationships make good neighbors, this has been one of the better weeks.