This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Robert Powell

InsideView from the Editor Treaty rhetoric obscures trade’s benefits H

ow did international trade become the political boogeyman of 2016? Donald Trump blames

multinational trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), for the economic woes of the American middle class.

Hillary Clinton also opposes TPP al- though she was for the treaty three years ago when she was President Obama’s secretary of state. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, signed the NAFTA treaty in 1993.

Meanwhile, British voters have decided to leave the European Union, the 28-nation economic alliance that accounts for 50 percent of Britain’s gross domestic product.

The loud political rhetoric about these treaties unfortunately has clouded public perception about the benefits of international trade.

In Virginia, exports represent about 8 percent of Virginia’s GDP, and a major effort is underway to push that percent- age higher.

As Senior Editor Jessica Sabbath reported in our July issue, recent actions by the Virginia General Assembly are designed to ramp up trade as a driver of the commonwealth’s economy. One major element of that move is the approval of a $350 million bond issue that will be used to expand the capacity of the Port of Virginia’s Norfolk International Terminals.

The port’s influence on the Virginia economy has accelerated in recent decades to the point that it affects busi- ness decisions from Hampton Roads to the Shenandoah Valley. That influence could grow even more with the recently completed expansion of the Panama Canal and the increasing use of huge vessels in international shipping. Virginia has an urgent need to diversify its economy, which still remains heavily dependent on government spending. Gov. Terry McAuliffe has repeatedly said that the commonwealth has a brief window of opportunity to alter the focus of its economy before a series of deep federal budget cuts, known as sequestration, are reimposed. Nearly 12 percent of the com-

Photo courtesy Port of Virginia

monwealth’s economy is dependent on defense spending. The General Assem- bly has included $1.5 million each year of the biennial state budget to continue a Virginia Economic Development Partnership program designed to aid state defense contractors. The Going Global Defense Initiative, which initially was supported with federal funds, assists contractors in marketing their products and services overseas.

Legislative appropriations also will bolster two other trade programs: Virginia International Trade Alliance (VITAL) and Virginia Leaders in Export Trade (VALET). VITAL encourages Virginia trade associations to promote state export programs to their members. VALET is a two-year program training companies on ways to increase interna- tional sales.

One highly visible VALET graduate, the Richmond-based C.F. Sauer Co., announced in early July that it will begin selling its iconic Duke’s mayonnaise in Colombia after taking part in a recent state-sponsored trade mission there. The biggest trade-related change approved by the legislature is the cre- ation of a separate agency, the Virginia International Trade Corp. (VITC). Supporters of the move, including the Virginia Chamber of Commerce and the Virginia Manufacturers Association, believe that a trade agency separate from VEDP will give more exposure to

A $350 million bond issue will be used to expand capacity at the Port of Virginia’s Norfolk Terminals.

the state’s trade programs while making a statement about the commonwealth’s commitment to international commerce. Appointment of VITC’s CEO is expected to take place by December, and the agency will begin operation in April. A 17-member board will govern the agency.

The progress of Virginia’s efforts, however, could be affected by the trade policies of the next president. In a June speech in Pennsylvania, Trump called current U.S. trade policy a “politician-made disaster” that has betrayed the working class. He wants to renegotiate NAFTA and withdraw from TPP. Earlier in his campaign, Trump also threatened to impose hefty tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. Noting the outcome of the “Brexit” referendum, Trump said the British people have voted to regain control of their economy and “now it’s time for the American people to take back their future.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce immediately criticized Trump’s speech, saying trade with Mexico and Canada supports 14 U.S. million jobs, 5 million of which are the result of increases in trade because of NAFTA.

Trump’s opposition to NAFTA and TPP represents a break from Republican orthodoxy on trade. In fact, his stance echoes the sentiments of Bernie Sand- ers, Clinton’s primary opponent. Sanders’ pressure during the cam- paign pulled Clinton to the left on many issues, including TPP. Asked to explain her flip-flop on the treaty last December, she said had “absorbed new informa- tion.” Clinton explained she had high hopes for the treaty while it was being negotiated three years ago, but the final document “didn’t meet my standards.” While exploiting the voters’ anger

about their economic struggles, the trade policies of both candidates have increased doubts about their leadership abilities. Trump’s critics fear he could provoke a trade war that would pitch the U.S. into recession. Clinton’s change of heart on TPP meanwhile feeds a wide- spread perception that she can’t be trusted.

Maybe the best hope for trade is that neither of them will keep their promises.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104