The AAFTA would draw together these 13 partners to build on the gains of free trade. It could also include the island states of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. Starting with a small secretariat, perhaps in Miami, the AAFTA should advance hemispheric economic integration; link development and democracy with trade and aid; improve working and environmental conditions; and continue to pursue the goal of free trade throughout the hemisphere. It might even foster cooperation in the WTO's global trade negotiations. The AAFTA might be connected to an academic center, which could combine research and practice through an association among universities in the Americas.
The AAFTA could promote the business of trade by helping the private sector learn how to use FTAs, while encouraging business feedback that identifies impediments -- such as customs complications, regulatory red tape, the lack of financial, energy or other services, and infrastructure problems. It might use technology to create a virtual network of business opportunities, especially for small business.
Moreover the AAFTA should concretely demonstrate how aid and trade can be mutually supportive. U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation grants are already enabling Central American countries to invest in physical and legal infrastructure matched to trade expansion. The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Ex-Im Bank and Trade and Development Agency programs could be integrated, too. AID projects for labor and the environment could promote core standards, best practices, benchmarking and corporate social responsibility projects. The Inter-American Development Bank, a leader in connecting aid and trade, might help with grants and loans to strengthen small business, the economic empowerment of indigenous communities, and education -- all connected to open societies in a global economy. Finally, over time the AAFTA partners might examine how the various FTAs could be knitted together, although these steps would likely require new congressional action.
The U.S. cannot afford to lose interest in its own neighborhood. The pied pipers of populism in Latin America are taking advantage of the genuine frustrations, especially in indigenous communities, of people who have not been able to climb the ladder of opportunity. We should not let these populists dictate the debate. We already have seen that electorates in Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Central America and the Dominican Republic have recognized that trade with the U.S. offers jobs and hope. We need to build on that foundation with results that link trade, aid, good governance, property rights and better working and environmental conditions. Even where populists prevailed, substantial constituencies who view the U.S. as an economic partner have constrained backward policies.
I agree with Zoellick wholeheartedly but he is on crack if he thinks the Dems are going to buy any of this. To lose interest in our "neighborhood" would have meant having interest in the first place. We all know that the only country south of the border that Rangel is interested in having any sort of trade with is Cuba. Let's plan and hope that Zoellick's vision gains traction because it is the vision of a free and prosperous hemisphere.
