On the morning of Oct. 14, U.S. President Barack Obama signed three free-trade agreements, one each with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. The trade deals are important steps forward for the United States and its partners. While these deals are economic agreements, they are much more. In particular, the deal with South Korea is a reaffirmation to and deepening of the relationship between the U.S. and a crucial trade partner. There is the lens through which such deals should be viewed: as strategic agreements rather than "mere" trade deals.
The trade agreements have awaited congressional action for five years. The deals were negotiated by the Bush administration, but the arrival in 2006 of a Democratic majority in Congress effectively shelved the initiatives. While Republicans and economists tout the economic advantages that flow from such agreements — virtually every study shows an increase in GDP resulting from new efficiencies — Democrats have countered that such deals are job-killers, making it easier for companies to outsource labor. According to Mr. Richard Trumka, president of one U.S. union, the deals will cost the U.S. 159,000 jobs by encouraging companies to send work overseas.
As a Democratic president, Mr. Obama is well aware of the concerns of his constituents. But Mr. Obama has also made the doubling of U.S. exports by 2015 a priority and he has been forced to recognize — perhaps even against his instincts — that trade deals can help him achieve that goal. Of course, workers need assistance to deal with the inevitable dislocations that follow in sunset industries. To that end, the White House and its congressional allies pushed for support of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), a measure that expands benefits to workers who lose jobs to foreign competition. Republicans had opposed the measure, saying it was too expensive.