President Bush’s first international trip—to Mexico—and the Summit of the Americas in Canada have focused significant political attention on our hemisphere.

This is a welcome development, heightening near-term expectations for actions to expand trade, forge a more mature relationship with Mexico, and assist the troubled Andean region. It is also recognition that the region requires sustained engagement at the highest levels to for the policies that have underlain US actions in the Americas during the administrations of the first President Bush and of President Clinton.

The United States has traditionally taken the region for granted, and storm clouds are on the horizon. How we follow up the Summit in Quebec City will help determine whether guerrilla war in Colombia, populist revolution in Venezuela, televised corruption in Peru, financial strain in Argentina, and disputed elections in Haiti promise a return to traditional ways or will instead form the rearguard of a discredited model. In other words, are we at a pause in an inevitable march toward the “end of history” in Latin America or at the inflection point of a lasting political and economic downturn?

The answer lies in how successful democratic leaders are in delivering an improved standard of living for the majority of their citizens, who even now face the greatest income disparities world wide. It’s a long-term proposal, to be sure, and, without strong actions following the Summit, time may begin to run out.

The 1994 hemispheric Summit in Miami set the terms of the debate. Recognizing and seeking to provide momentum to the winds of change blowing across the hemisphere, President Clinton proposed a partnership for prosperity built on trade. Long before protesters converged on Quebec City, this economic partnership was designed to proceed simultaneously with steps the nations would take internally to deepen democracy, such as efforts to reform judiciaries, improve health, education, and the environment, and increase energy cooperation.

But the sine qua non for success was agreement to establish the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) by 2005. This was based on the belief that, all other things equal, open markets strengthen democracies, and that the best hope for stronger democracies lay with increased exposure to the global economy. At the second Summit, in Santiago in 1998, the 34 participating nations formally began FTAA negotiations.

It was an approach drawn directly from the proposals of the first Bush administration to promote democratic gains through trade and investment : to do well by doing good. Specifically, NAFTA was conceived and negotiated by the first Bush administration and passed by the Clinton administration, a bipartisan statement of confidence in our future with Mexico and a recognition of the importance of a solid North American base from which to expand trade and investment throughout the hemisphere. The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative and the Brady Plan for debt reduction were two additional actions of the Bush administration that paved the way for a broader and deeper partnership with the region.

Now we need to implement the bipartisan Summit vision. After Quebec City, we must insist on accountability from regional leaders for their previous Summit commitments, even as most of these same leaders call for progress on trade. Additionally, the Bush administration hopes to achieve fast-track authority, negotiate a bilateral agreement with Chile, and renew the Andean Trade Preferences Act, all by the end of the year. But this ambitious agenda, in addition to a number of other difficult non-trade issues, will require bipartisan action. And unless Congress is now prepared to support a robust legislative program for the Americas, little more than rhetorical progress will have been achieved.

Democracy in the hemisphere remains fragile. The time for partisanship in the United States is past, beginning in the near term with agreement to strengthen democracy through trade expansion, even as the US economy slows. The process may well require more attention than the administration has budgeted at the outset. But it will be worth the effort. And the long-term well being of the hemisphere, and our national interests, demand no less. wt

sidebar:Excerpt from US President George Bush’s Remarks to the Council of the Americas, May 7, 2001

"The Council of the Americas was formed 36 years ago, in a different America. And it’s certainly a different world. In 1965, international trade and investment mattered much less to the U.S. economy. We traded mostly with the countries of Europe. Interestingly enough, at that point in time, Mexico was our fifth largest trading partner. Today, she’s the second largest trading partner, behind Canada.

In 1965, so few Americans traced their ancestry to Latin America that the Census didn’t even bother to tabulate them. Today, some 35 million Americans are of Hispanic origin. In 1965, military and authoritarian regimes ruled all too many of the countries of the Americas. Today, with one sad, solitary exception, every nation in our hemisphere has an elected government.

A recent summit in Quebec symbolized the new reality in our hemisphere — a unity of shared values, shared culture and shared trade. And together, we made good progress at that summit, the beginnings of a really strong and fruitful relationship all throughout the hemisphere.

In the 1980s and the early ‘90s, our nation negotiated many important trade agreements: the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement; the North American Free Trade Agreement; and the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Talks. Since then, efforts have stalled as U.S. trade promotion authority was allowed to lapse. The inactivity of the American government has had real costs for the American people. The United States has few better friends, for example, than the Republic of Chile; but the fact is Canadian goods sold in Chile pay a lower tariff than American goods do, because the United States has left its trade talks with Chile unfinished.

Free trade agreements are being negotiated all over the world, and we’re not a party to them. And this has got to change. Americans are the world’s preeminent inventor of new technology and the world’s biggest foreign investor. We’re the world’s most efficient food producer, and the world’s leading source of information and entertainment. For our farmers and our inventors, for our artists and for ordinary savers open trade pays off in the form of higher incomes and higher returns.

We benefit from open trade in less tangible ways, as well. Americans want to live on a cleaner planet; we want labor standards upheld and children protected from exploitation. Americans want human rights and individual freedom to advance. Open trade advances those American values, those universal values.

By failing to make the case for trade, we’ve allowed a new kind of protectionism to appear in this country. It talks of workers, while it opposes a major source of new jobs. It talks of the environment, while opposing the wealth-creating policies that will pay for clean air and water in developing nations. It talks of the disadvantaged, even as it offers ideas that would keep many of the poor in poverty.

Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative. Trade creates jobs for the unemployed. When we negotiate for open markets, we are providing new hope for the world’s poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting political freedom. Societies that open to commerce across their borders will open to democracy within their borders, not always immediately, and not always smoothly, but in good time.

Look at our friends, Mexico, and the political reforms there. Look at Taiwan. Look at South Korea. And some day soon, I hope that an American President will end that list by adding, look at China. I believe in open trade with China, because I believe that freedom can triumph in China.

Later this week, I will send the outline of my trade agenda to Congress. My administration wants to work with Congress and to listen to what the members have to say. We’ve been especially impressed by the fresh new thinking of many members about how to advance environmental and worker protection concerns in ways that open trade, rather than closing trade. They recognize that one-size-fits-all policies can’t succeed. They know we need a toolbox equipped to match diverse tools with diverse problems, and I agree.

And one tool I must have is renewed U.S. trade promotion authority. I urge the Congress, restore our nation’s authority to negotiate trade agreements. And I will use that authority to build freedom in the world, progress in our hemisphere, and enduring prosperity in the United States.

We must pass the Free Trade Agreement with Jordan, one of our best friends in the Middle East. We need to complete our Free Trade Agreement with Singapore. We must proceed with other bilateral and regional agreements. And the time has come for a new global trade round.

I’m optimistic about trade. I’m also realistic about trade. I will enforce our laws against unfair trade practices. And I want to consider how we can improve our program for trade adjustment assistance when it comes up for re-authorization next year. But we must understand that the transition costs of open trade are dwarfed by open trade’s benefits, that are measured not only in dollars and cents, but in human freedom, human dignity, human rights and human progress.

We must make those benefits a reality for all the people of our hemisphere. And that’s the task ahead. I accept it with enthusiasm. And I’m counting on the Council’s help to bring sanity to the United States Congress."