University of Chicago: Alumni Forum on International Trade: Exporting U.S. Values

The following article appeared on the University Chicago Public Policy webpage on May 19, 2015. A link to the article can be found here.

By Mike Quigley

As negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement are being finalized, it's important to remember that modern trade negotiations are as much about exporting U.S. products as they are about exporting U.S. standards for labor and the environment. Trade agreements can have enormous consequences on the environment, but if done right, they can present the United States with a unique opportunity to significantly raise environmental standards around the world and shape global environmental policy for years to come.

That's why it's crucial that the U.S. lead the effort to establish robust environmental standards in the Asia-Pacific region. Other countries with long records of environmental abuse, like China, are negotiating their own trade agreements in the region, and if the U.S. isn't writing the rules for global trade, China will. Without U.S. leadership in the region, we will likely see irreversible damage to our environment and American workers placed at an even greater disadvantage. Therefore, it is imperative that U.S. trade negotiators continue to lead on TPP and pursue environmental standards that are strong, binding and fully enforceable.

At a minimum, this means we should pursue a level of environmental protection that is consistent with the bipartisan May 10, 2007, trade framework. The May 10th Agreement represents trade principles agreed upon by Congress and the George W. Bush administration before passage of the Colombia, Panama, Peru and South Korea free trade agreements. These principles required the trade agreements to adhere to seven major multilateral environmental agreements (MEA) to which the United States was already a party. The MEAs tackle a number of environmental challenges ranging from the protection of endangered species and marine wildlife to the reduction of ozone-depleting substances.

Although the May 10th Agreement serves as an adequate baseline for negotiations, future trade agreements should build on the agreement and commit our trading partners to additional standards that address emerging environmental issues. TPP gives us the chance to require new conservation and fisheries provisions that go beyond current international agreements. It should also include new robust standards to combat wildlife trafficking and illegal logging.

Finally, while essential, establishing high environmental standards is not enough. We must learn from the mistakes made in NAFTA. Environmental standards should be subject to the full scope of enforcement mechanisms and placed on equal footing with commercial violations. If consultation and other avenues fail, then violations should be handled through the same dispute settlement procedures that apply to the other provisions in the trade agreement.

At their best, our trade agreements are an opportunity to level the playing field for American workers and broaden our environmental protection efforts. But if one of our trading partners fails to live up to its commitments, the United States should have the ability to hold it accountable.

Many Americans have expressed concern that entering into new trade agreements will hurt small businesses and middle-class families and put us in direct competition with countries that have poor environmental standards. These concerns are understandable. But by making strong, enforceable environmental protections the foundation of our trade agreements, we can raise environmental standards around the globe, giving us the ability to address global environmental problems like climate change while ensuring American workers and businesses are competing on a fair and level playing field.