By Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. . Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute .
The Christian Science Monitor
BEING a free-trader carries with it a moral obligation not to whip up public hysteria against foreign nations. It is all too easy to blame foreigners for problems whose causes and cures are right here at home. The economic consequences of violating this obligation are protectionism, a lower standard of living, and sometimes an open trade war.
It is tragic that President Clinton has suddenly begun to use anti-foreigner rhetoric in his sales pitch for the North American Free Trade Agreement. He argues that NAFTA is needed to protect us against "threats" from Japan and Europe. Lee Iacocca is more explicit; he says we should pass NAFTA because Japan and Europe don't like it. Even columnist William Safire has gotten into this xenophobic act.
Japan and Europe are, after all, our customers and our suppliers. Governments may squabble over the unfortunate quotas, "dumping" laws, and tariffs that blight international trade, but we are not in an "economic war" with them. In fact, our prosperity is in many ways interdependent with that of Japan and Europe, just as everyone in the domestic market economy is linked through trade.
These attacks on "the other" could endanger crucial global trading relationships. No foreign nation wants to be scourged by the leader of the world's only superpower. It creates resentments that can lead to trade wars. Even if NAFTA were free trade - and it isn't - it would be far better for it to go down to defeat than to pass under the rhetoric of protectionism and hatred of foreigners.
As inward-looking as Mr. Clinton's new NAFTA strategy is, it highlights an important truth about this trade agreement. It isn't about creating an open and nondiscriminatory atmosphere for businesses to buy and sell their wares. It is about the creation of a new trade bloc that gives preferential treatment to this region's goods over those of other regions. "Rules of origin" are the logic of cold-war alliances applied to the trade policy of peace.
Economists have long known that a trade bloc, or its "customs union" cousin, can cause as much trade diversion as it can encourage trade itself. It does no favor to the American consumer to give Mexican cars better treatment than Japanese cars. American businesses, moreover, should be allowed to make their own decisions about whether Europe, Japan, or Mexico should buy their products.
There are other reasons NAFTA does not deserve the free-trade label. United States Trade Representative Mickey Kantor has bragged time and again that the side accords he negotiated put new conditions on regional trade. Under them, "No nation will lower labor or environmental standards, only raise them. …