They say that success is a matter of luck--just ask any failure.
The narrow passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the House of Representatives was the product of very hard work on the part of trade negotiators, industry advocates, farm groups, and lawmakers committed to the principle that lowering trade barriers heightens economic prosperity. There may have been a little luck involved as well. The vote, cast shortly after midnight on July 28, was 217-215. It was the political equivalent of a photo finish.
Failure to approve CAFTA would have sent an inconsistent message to the rest of the world. It would have said that the United States, a leader in the global economy, is now abandoning its hard-earned position of privilege and esteem. If we didn’t approve a modest deal such as CAFTA--a real no-brainer to anybody who looks at the matter objectively--then how can we do the really hard stuff?
By approving CAFTA, the United States will continue its tradition of leading the world in the direction of trade liberalization.
Since the end of the Second World War, this has been one of our country’s primary international goals and accomplishments. The results are impossible to dispute: The United States and indeed the entire world are far, far wealthier than they were five or six decades ago. Freer and more open trade is a significant part of the reason why.
Relatively speaking, CAFTA is a drop in the ocean compared to what’s at stake in the Doha round of World Trade Organization talks, which are taking place right now and scheduled to conclude by the end of next year. The WTO is the granddaddy of them all--a membership organization comprised of nearly 150 nations, including every major nation except Russia (and Russia would like to join).
All trade agreements are important, including the pacts between just two countries as well as regional agreements, but they’re dwarfed by the WTO. The most important issue before the WTO is agriculture. Here in the United States, intellectual property rights and trade in services also matter a lot, but for most of the rest of the world, agriculture dominates. Developed nations want better access to markets in developing countries, and developing countries want the developed nations to quit subsidizing their farmers and level the ag playing field.
We’ve seen some encouraging progress in the Doha round. In fact, it looks like export subsidies, which distort trade in significant ways, may become a thing of the past. This doesn’t directly affect many farmers in the United States, but it certainly does indirectly. Export subsidies have been a common European practice. They use them to lower sale prices in order to sell products that should have been purchased from American farmers.
This is an important achievement, assuming it’s a part of the Doha Round’s final package. I’m always cautious to assume that everything remains on the table until the deal is finally done. Still, the days for export subsidies appear to be numbered – and that’s a good thing.
But, probably even harder and certainly more controversial in the U.S., will be the effort to decrease subsidies paid to farmers in response to low prices. Both President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in recent weeks have called for an end to subsidies--an ambitious demand that may not be realized any time soon, but a worthy goal if it inspires countries to think about boosting agricultural profitability in ways that don’t compromise free trade.
The end of trade-distorting subsidies to farmers is a major goal of developing countries. They have now formed a new, strong block as they compete with the U.S. and Europe for recognition in the new, freer trading world. In fact, we only ‘bury our heads in the sand’ if we overlook this new anti-subsidy movement.
No matter whether we’re talking about a small trade deal such as CAFTA or a big one such as the WTO’s Doha round, we must remember - there’s no such thing as a perfect trade agreement. Each one has its flaws. Virtually all of them, however, improve upon what came beforehand. Sometimes progress is fast, as with a long forward pass. Most of the time it’s slow and methodical, like “three yards and a cloud of dust.” But every play moves the ball toward the goal line.
Sometimes the lucky team wins--but usually it’s the better team that comes out on top.
News 
They say that success is a matter of luck--just ask any failure.
