Nick Smith, September 14, 2003

I write this column in a Mexican hotel room after a long day at the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks. We met today with European, Brazilian, and Australian trade representatives and had a briefing with our Secretary of Agriculture as well as the lead U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert Zoellick. Trade ministers from 146 countries are here to work on agreements to remove barriers to global trade. Prospects for success are dim as American proposals for significant change have been dismissed and even the American-European agreement has been criticized.

In terms of agriculture, this is the first time since I represented the U.S. Department of Agriculture in trade negotiations in the early 1970's that agriculture has had the attention that it is now getting in these talks. American agriculture has been so competitive in the past that the interests of American farmers were often sacrificed to give advantages to other American industries. We now want other countries to reduce their tariffs on our agricultural imports, and other countries want the United States and Europe to stop subsidizing farmers and import more foreign products at world prices.

The stubborn positions of almost all the parties involved make real progress in these meetings unlikely. Developing countries have come to the talks asserting that drastic reductions of tariffs would destabilize their economies and shut off vital sources of revenue for their governments. The Europeans have come making the ridiculous assertion that their paltry agricultural "reforms" are already a significant concession. The fact is that they are not.

There are interesting politics influencing these negotiations. The U.S. is now seeking support for our anti-terrorism efforts in Iraq and elsewhere and does not want to be responsible for keeping developing countries from expanding their exports. On the other side of the coin, America is calling on countries such as those in South America, that desperately want to have bilateral trade agreements with the U.S., to support the United States in these talks. In terms of the agriculture agreement, there are other countries such as China, that have huge non-agricultural trade surpluses with the U.S., which put pressure on their agricultural negotiators to compromise if necessary.

What I have suggested to our trade negotiators and to other countries is that they cannot expect the United States to have a trade deficit approaching $500 billion dollars a year and have open arms for the products of other countries while they restrict their markets to our exports. The U.S. average tariff on imported goods is 12% compared to 62% charged by the rest of the world. I and other members of Congress are demanding that U.S. negotiators must be careful to avoid shouldering economic disadvantages simply to find a compromise agreement. Our proposal is to eliminate trade barriers and export trade subsidies. The U.S. wants market access and countries that have low or no subsidies want the U.S. and European Union to lower economic subsidies.

The President and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick have said they are not going to put our farmers and industries at a disadvantage simply to call these talks a success. I and other Members of Congress will not vote for such a trade agreement if it fails American agriculture and manufacturing just for the sake of completing the trade talk round.

Congressman Nick Smith represents the 7th Congressional District of Michigan in the U.S. House of Representatives.