St. Louis Post-Dispatch from St. Louis, Missouri • Page 15

TUESDAY, JUNE 1,1993 ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 3B ANTHONY LEWIS GEORGE WILL COMMENTARY Side Agreements Won't Fix NAFTA's Flaws 4 competion of environmental and labor legislation in the region 'I support the Free Trade Agreement and I will work in the next months for passage by the American Congress this The majority leader has expressed quite a variety of positions helping get Bush's fast track passed; demanding rejection of NAFTA when he was running for re-election; saying it needed tough side agreements to get through Congress; and, promising that he supports it and wants it passed in 1993. One of the most bothersome aspects of the current debate is an attempt by the Clinton administration to define the anti- change the direction of an economy that threatens the existence of life on this planet Second, labor has no interest in supporting side agreements it is clear that a major purpose behind NAFTA is to make it easier for businesses to move where labor is cheapest. Side agreements may or may not slow this, but they would not reverse the direction of a trade agreement designed to bring wages down. Third, side agreements would not do what the administration says they would (protect labor and the environment).

The Clinton administration is proposing commissions without authority to By Don Fitz fi ep. Richard Gephardt has a crucial role in the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement. As majority leader, Gephardt has considerable leverage in getting it through Congress or getting it stopped. But predicting what he will do is about as easy as grabbing a frog in a swamp. When George Bush was requesting fast-track authorization in 1991, Gephardt said, "No way." But at the last minute he supported fast track and brought enough votes to pass it Bush signed NAFTA, as the agreement is known, on Sept.

6, 1992. At that I Jit oi 'lb' 01 i issue subpoenas or impose sanctions. Stripped of even the weakest enforcement power, the investigatory commissions would not even be able to make people who are being investigated show up. Fourth, side agreements are limited to inadequate attempts to cope with labor and environmen time, Gephardt was being challenged for having supported the pro-NAFTA fast-track legislation. On Sept.

9, Gephardt wrote: "Today, I call upon the Bush ad-ministraton to cease further efforts to win Congressional approval of the current North American Free Trade Agreement, and to renegotiate it, or leave it for the next administration to be written right." Since early 1993, Gephardt Clinton's Stumbles Raise Nagging Doubts BOSTON What has gone wrong with the Clinton presidency? Can it be fixed? Or are we headed foanother failure that will further erode public faith in the political system? The questions are being asked astonishingly so, if you think how early it is. Four months into a new administration, people who voted for it are wondering whether it can be saved. President Bill Clinton has just won a big victory with House passage of his budget measure. That will raise morale in a bruised White House. But the doubts will not so easily go away.

How could a man as smart as Clinton, and as experienced in politics, tie up the Los Angeles Airport to get himself a $200 haircut? How could he be so oblivious to public reaction? Is there no one on his staff with the sense and the independence to tell him no? Oblivious is the word for the handling of the White House travel office affair. Did no one on the Ginton staff understand how unfair it was to fire Jqg4ime employees as suspected wrongdoers with-oujgjying thep a chance to defend themselves? Or it would look to deny later that they had beeriired? The puzzle about this smart administration is how itjiajibe so oblivious to reality. And that goes much deeper than the incidents of recent weeks. clue may lie in the nature of Clinton's campaign: It was a campaign of sweeping promises, sweeping ani explicit. He said he would end welfare as we know it, end adult illiteracy within five years, give all Americans health care and pay for it out of cos't't'ontrols, cut middle-class taxes, reduce the deficit, And so on.

those cynical promises by a candidate who knew how hfd it would be to carry them out? To the contrary. jClinton was part of a generation that rejected as an excuse the idea that things are hard to fix. It believed the country's problems stemmed from inept leadership and believed it could solve them if it took' power. TheTe ISldfealism in that view, but also dangerous naivete. Governing is hard work, the more so in a country whose Constitution divides power so it will be difficult to change things.

The president is the focus of the vast apparatus of modern communications. Americans look to him to solve, all their problems. But the desire greatly outpaces the reality of presidential power. By all signs Bill Clinton believed in the presidential myth when he took office. He did not understand what it takes to govern: leaning, dealing, threatening, making friends, making enemies.

At least he has not demonstrated that understanding. Republican opposition is rigidly partisan, showing no willingness to face the economic mess that Republican administrations created. And Clinton also has to worry about a midget Mussolini who claims he cafiVnake the trains run on time as long as-you don't ask him how. But those are realities, not excuses. If Clinton is going to recover from these first months and succeed in the.

White House, he had better add to his staff some people who understand political reality. And he hadbetter start talking straight to the country about, its problems. Copyright New York Tlrnes News Service Pendulum Of Power Sways Toward Congress WASHINGTON 8n 1878, when football was new on campus, Tommy Wilson, a Princeton undergraduate and informal football coach, wrote, "Everything depends upon the character of the captain and president of the team." Years later Wilson, then known by his middle name, Woodrow, would think of government the way he had thought of football. He said that when a president has the confidence of the country, "no other single force can withstand him." He can be "irresistible" in an office that can be "anything he has the sagacity and force to make it" A forthright critic of the separation of powers, Wilson revolutionized the presidential office, treating it not only as the engine of an activist central government but as the nation's tutor. But today Bill Clinton is reduced to around-the-clock dickering with a House of Representatives his party controls, and the House is less than half of his congressional problem.

He is unhappily experiencing the marginalization of the presidency that began under his predecessor. Clinton is powerless to prevent the end of the Wilsonian tradition he aimed to revitalize. Clinton assumes that Americans are, or should be and can be made to be, in a rallying 'round mood. But rallying 'round is what people do in emergencies, particularly wars. That is why contemporary liberals, with their collectivist agendas, seem perpetually nostalgic for wartime.

The end of the Cold War is one reason America now has its second consecutive president who is notably mismatched to his moment in office. George Bush prepared all his life to conduct the Cold War, only to have it end, leaving him (almost literally) speechless. Clinton, too, is a casualty of peace. He urgently needs the aura that surrounded presidents when the nation was in a permanent state of siege in a hair-trigger world. Clinton may seem to be a miniaturized president, but that is because 60 years of emergencies from the stock market crash of October 1929 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 made most presidents seem larger than life-sized figures.

However, the office that Wilson thought potentially irresistible has always been much less powerful than it is prominent. Clinton is floundering because his ideology tells him three false things. It tells him that 12 years of Republican "neglect" must constitute a crisis comparable to depression or war. It tells him that nothing is difficult for the truly moral that, for example, the reason there are millions of people without health insurance is that until now no one has really cared. And it tells him that the Wilson, FDR and LBJ presidencies are models to be emulated today.

However, a lesson of the first one-twelfth of Clinton's term is that "gridlock" results not just from "divided government," the legislative and executive branches controlled by different parties. It also results from both branches being controlled by a divided party, which the Democratic Party is. Peace is going to be hell for presidents, at least for those not reconciled to the restoration of what is, when viewed against the sweep of American history, normal: congressional supremacy. Copyright Washington Post Writers Group L-t -Y tal issues. They do not even pretend to deal with agricultural issues, pesticide standards, human-rights violations, intellectual property and rights of indigenous peoples.

Fifth, side agreements would not dismantle the single worst feature of NAFTA: its dispute-resolution panels. These panel members would not be elected. They would not represent labor, environmental, agricultural or human-rights groups. They would not be required to listen to scientific testimony before rendering decisions that would affect the health and welfare of hundreds of millions of people. Is Gephardt posturing as a critic of NAFTA to juggle for the best position possible to slide it through Congress? NAFTA goes in the wrong direction.

It cannot be patched up. Environmentalists, trade unionists, farmers, students, and human-rights activists are saying they do not want NAFTA or side agreements. Don Fitz edits the newsletter for the Gateway Green Alliance in St. Louis. has been calling for side agreements or supplemental agreements that would require strict enforcement of labor and environmental laws in Mexico.

The press often counters his position to that of Sen. John Danforth, who would like to approve NAFTA without side agreements. In a March 1993 trip to Mexico, Gephardt observed appalling factory conditions. The March 8 Post-Dispatch quoted him: "If these problems are not solved in further negotiations, I don't think NAFTA can be approved. It shouldn't be approved." Recently, comments Gephardt made during his March trip to Mexico surfaced.

They had been reported in the prestigious Mexico City newspaper, Excelsior, on March 24. According to Excelsior, both Gephardt and Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari "agreed that the trade agreement has already been negotiated and will not be reopened Gephardt indicated that, with parallel agreements, which assure adequate NAFTA position for us. If you are against NAFTA, then you are supposed to support side agreements. Thus, the big hoopla in May when seven environmental groups gave a tentative nod to NAFTA. Of course, most of these seven are Washington lobbying groups that have had similar positions all along.

More important, the large number of environmental groups that actually have grassroots memberships have consistently rejected NAFTA: Greenpeace, Public Citizen, National Toxics Campaign, Friends of the Earth, Rainforest Action, Environmental Action, Clean Water Action, Sierra Club, Earth Island and The Greens. Many have explained for some time that side agreements are no more than a fig leaf to cover a trade agreement that cannot be remedied. First, most environmentalists feel that NAFTA is designed to help industry move to where it is easiest to release toxic poisons. Side agreements may or may not slow this, but they would not A New Kind Of NAFTA CYNTHIA TUCKER DEBRA SAUNDERS the prospect of ever-lower wages and conditions under a NAFTA that has no effective or enforceable standards. Real free traders wouldn't object.

After all, what free trader would oppose creating a trade zone for one-half the world's GNP? Such an agreement would also deserve the support of workers and their unions both here and in Europe as long as the Social Charter continues to be part of the deal. And European leaders, confronting several years of low growth much like our own could endorse a new agreement as a means of breathing life into sluggish economies. The new agreement would anchor the United States in Europe in the post-Cold War era, acting as a compelling antidote for isolationist voices that have been a persistent and dangerous undercurrent in American political life. Permanent U.S. cooperation with Europe economic rather than military would help ensure that continent of America's longstanding commitment to a region that has been at the center of two world wars.

A North Atlantic free-trade agreement would reinforce the common democratic values that are at the root of the NATO political-military alliance. So why has no one proposed this already? The answer is simple. The financial elites pushing the current NAFTA aren't really interested in uplifting living standards in either Mexico or the United States but in making a quick profit by exploiting Mexico's low wages and poor enforcement of environmental and labor laws. In their shortsighted view, linking our economy with Europe defeats this purpose. It's time for Clinton and the congressional leadership to look at shaping a new kind of NAFTA a North Atlantic free-trade agreement that would put us on an upward path of hope and progress rather than on a downward spiral of exploitation and folly.

lane Kirkland is president of the AFL-CIO. The Washington Post By Lane Kirkland President Bill Clinton is in a quandary over his predecessor's North American Free Trade Agreement While hoping to make NAFTA more palatable to its critics by negotiating "side agreements" on labor and environmental standards, he also knows that any truly effective and enforceable standards will be labeled "protectionist" by business supporters and will cause them to jump ship. Fortunately, there is a way out a credible alternative that will expand America's trade opportunities without forcing down the wages and working conditions of U.S. and Canadian workers. Instead of trying to fix a North American Free Trade Agreement, the administration should boldly propose a North Atlantic free-trade agreement.

An agreement negotiated with the 12 nations of the $6 trillion European Economic Community would link the U.S. and Canada to a trading bloc accounting for $13 trillion in gross domestic product. It would create a single market of more than 600 million consumers. Unlike a NAFTA agreement with Mexico, a North Atlantic free-trade agreement with Europe would benefit not harm U.S. and Canadian workers.

It would tie us to countries with high wages, strong consumer purchasing power and high standards of living. It also would enable American workers to benefit from the European Social Charter that sets standards on vocational training, equal pay for equal work, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. A new agreement would cement a trading relationship that also could ease and open up mutually beneficial investment within the world's largest bloc of capital. A new Atlantic NAFTA could resolve escalating U.S.-European trade tensions by opening up markets for American farmers, could lead to cooperative relationships designed to improve high-tech industries and could help re- verse a process of deindustrialization that has brought the number of high-paying manufacturing jobs down to only 16.8 percent of our work force. A North Atlantic free-trade bloc would have the clout with which to negotiate balanced trade with Japan and China.

For example, American steel and auto workers would be glad to see our country adopt Europe's industrial and trade policies, which include limits on Japanese and Asian steel imports and tough quotas on Japanese auto imports. As for Mexican workers, they would fare much better if Mexico were eventually brought into a North Atlantic trade agreement than they would under the current plan for a North American pact. For example, while the current version of NAFTA would have a depressing effect on U.S. jobs and markets, Mexican workers would benefit from a stronger U.S. economy that would result from the new North Atlantic bloc.

They would also have a chance to improve their own fortunes under the North Atlantic bloc's social charter, rather than having to face California Credit Law Costs Valuable Jobs SAN FRANCISCO Pretend there is a law that is a reasonable law, except that it costs a state lots of jobs. Should a legislature repeal the law to save jobs, or remain pure with fewer jobs? Change that question to reflect a dubious law that endangers the state jobs, and you arrive at an issue facing California legislators. The issue is California's credit-card law. The dubious law concerns fees that credit-card companies like to levy on customers who make late payments or exceed their credit limit. In California, those fees are restricted by law.

Recent court cases have fined banks for imposing modest fees averaging $3 to $5, while current market standards occupy the $10 to $25 range. Oiher states may or may not impose limits on credit-card fees. Arizona, for example, has no limit on fees one reason, the industry contends, that Bank of America began relocating its 600-job credit-card operations from San Francisco to Phoenix two years ago. At least the state's job-killing law protects California consumers, you might think. If so, you would be wrong.

State law does not hinder the charging of late fees to state shoppers. Far from it, instead the law hinders the ability of California-based companies to penalize late payers nationwide. The Californian with an Arizona-based card is subject to late charges, while delinquent Fresnans and Iowans enjoy a special benefit at a cost to an industry that directly employs 21,669 Californians. Ironically, the state would outlaw banks from doing what it does regularly itself. Pay your car registration after the due date and you will be levied a late fee.

The Franchise Tax Board and Internal Revenue Service also fine late payers. But why should late credit-holies be exempted from the same treatment saved for tardy taxpayers? Democratic State Sen. Daniel Boatwright has introduced Senate Bill 1145, which would allow banks to do what government does freely charge late fees as a means of incentive for prompt payment. But the bill is likely to be scuttled in the state Senate Judiciary Committee. The shame is that while this measure no doubt could stand improvement, it ought to be passed to save jobs and send a signal that legislators finally have come to see businesses as more than entities created to be overtaxed and overregulated.

By the same token, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown has introduced another jobs measure, this one a bill that would exempt manufacturers from paying sales tax on equipment bought for use within the state. Brown's measure would cost the state some revenue, but not passing his measure would cost the state long-term revenue and jobs. The failure to pass such a measure would keep California at a competitive disadvantage with other Western states. Sacramento lawmakers ostensibly are elected to do what is best for California, not what is most popular with voters and special interest groups. But when it comes to passing measures that save jobs that is, other people's jobs (you should see how serious these guys get when their own perks or power grabs are on the block) the Legislature has a way to go.

Copyright Son Francisco Chronicle Gun Lobby Myopia Omits Human Factors t. ili ATLANTA odney Peairs says he will never use a gun jWf again, but he is already marked for life by mthat one moment last October when he pulled a gun in fear, aimed it at a stranger and shot him dead. To examine the events of that fall evening in a Baton Rouge, suburb is to understand the foolish myopia of the nation's major gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), which would reduce this epidemic of gun deaths to a simple battle between good and evil, criminals and law-abiding citizens, predators and protectors. There are no criminals in the story of the tragic meeting of Peairs and 16-year-old Yoshihiro (called Yoshi) Hattori, a Japanese exchange student. There are only victims victims of cultural misunderstanding, irrational fear and, most of all, the cult of gun ownership in America.

The problem with the simplistic world view proffered by the gun lobby is that it offers no accommodation for human nature, which is often complex and Unpredictable. A gun can turn a simple misunderstanding into a tragic altercation. Consider what happened on Oct. 17, 1992. Hattori and the son, of his host parents, Webb Haymaker, were iodki'ngnfor a Halloween party.

They knocked at the wrong house. When Peairs' wife, Bonnie, opened the door and saw two strangers, she screamed for her husband to get the gun. Peairs ran to the ba'cRfUr a loaded pistol. He came back to the door and yelled at the boys to "freeze." Yoshi kept walking toward him. Peairs fired once, striking the boy in the chest.

Much has been made of Mrs. Peairs' alarm. At the trial, when asked what she was thinking, she replied, "There was no thinking involved. I wish I could have thought. If I could have just thought." In fact, there is nothing so unusual about her panicl her irrationality, especially given the constant drum beat of news reports about violent crime.

Most of us are not trained to think in moments of sheer terror. We react, blindly. That is what makes the astonishing number of gun4 in America about 200 million so dangerous. Not because so many of us are evil or criminal or' mean. But because most of us are frail and frightened and prone to error.

There was enough difference in Peairs' commu-nity and Yoshi's native Nagoya, Japan, to create a mild clash of cultures. Japan has little violent crime and civilian ownership of guns is severely restricted, was less than fluent. He may not halte understood Peairs' order to stop. But it was the delusion that guns grant protection relentlessly peddled by the NRA that turned ihis, misunderstanding into tragedy with interna-tioDai reverberations. The Peairses and Hattoris hardly-unusual in their victimization by that delusion.

Anestimated 1,200 Americans die each yearjin handgun accidents. In 1987, more than 12JJ00 Americans used handguns to take their own liwesj yhat if there had been no gun in the Peairs Jipusehold? When Mrs. Peairs screamed, wouldn't her husband have run to lock the door? Wouldn't they have called the police? Wouldn't Yoshi Hattori be alive? The gun lobby's slogans don't say. Copyright Chronicle Features Inc. Dick WrightProvidence Journal-Bulletin.