The failure late last week of the WTO ministerial summit to produce an agenda for a new round of negotiations was an unfortunate setback for U.S. trade policy, but not a permanent defeat. In our view, the President took the right position of asking that our trading partners commit to a new push for trade liberalization and a new effort to craft rules ensuring that expanded trade does not conflict with domestic or international environmental standards or internationally recognized basic rights of workers. The protestors in Seattle who are celebrating the collapse of the talks should realize that their own goals, including a more open and accountable WTO, can only be achieved when trade negotiations resume, as they ultimately will.

The President's position on labor rights was only one factor in the failure to reach agreement. As the President summed it up: "The Europeans were not prepared at this time to change their common agricultural policy, which accounts for 85 percent of the export subsidies in the world. The Japanese have their own agricultural and other issues to deal with. The U.S. was not prepared to change its policy on dumping...And the developing nations...think that we and everybody else...ought to have more open markets for agricultural products, which doesn't affect America so much, and for textiles, which does affect us."

The really ludicrous idea circulating around cynical Washington political circles is that the President "took a dive" in Seattle, deliberately torpedoing the talks he had done so much to bring about, in order to satisfy the AFL-CIO or help the Vice President's campaign. This conspiracy theory makes no sense. This President has consistently and tenaciously promoted open trade throughout his presidency as a central element of both his foreign policy and his domestic economic strategy, often against entrenched opposition in both parties. His negotiating position for Seattle, including the call for recognition of workers' rights as a legitimate issue, was developed months ago, and was publicly announced on October 13. It was endorsed by an advisory commission that included a broad array of major business executives. And it was endorsed by the DLC, whom no one has ever accused of being squishy on trade.

"I have always had what I guess you would call a third way position on trade," the President said last week. "I think the position of Americans, including some in my party, that trade is bad for America and bad for the world, is just dead wrong."

The Administration will have a fresh opportunity to show its resolve on trade policy during the "battle after Seattle": the vote in Congress next year on permanent normal trade relations (NTR) for China, which will seal the deal made by our trade negotiators to open up a wide array of Chinese markets to our goods and services. Several groups participating in the Seattle protests, including the AFL-CIO and the Naderite group Public Citizen, announced plans to stage a similar drive to kill NTR for China.

In the spirit of constructive engagement, we would not want to call the pending vote in Congress on permanent Normal Trade Relations for China a "no-brainer," but it's hard to articulate a rational case against it. China will get into the WTO whether or not this vote passes. If it fails, the only "losers" will be the U.S. businesses and workers who will be denied the benefits of the concessions our trade negotiators have wrung from China as part of the WTO deal. Since the United States gave up nothing in these negotiations other than support of China's membership in WTO, there are no adverse consequences that voting down NTR would avoid. It would, however, greatly strengthen the hand of anti-American hardliners in Beijing, which is bad news for anyone concerned about the domestic or international policies of China.

Democratic opponents of the President's policy to admit China into the WTO would also do well to remember the political consequences of going to war on NTR. Many House Democrats in marginal seats, especially those affiliated with the 64-member New Democrat Coalition, are standing with the President on the China issue because of their genuine belief in what's best for workers, farmers, and businesses in their districts, for America's economic growth and leadership in the world, and for steering China toward a more constructive engagement with the democratic world. Giving them grief on this issue could severely damage prospects for House Democrats in 2000.

The NTR vote is too important to lose. With the opposition emboldened by Seattle, it is incumbent upon pro-trade Democrats and their allies, especially in the business community, to make their voices heard on NTR early and often. You can't win unless you show up and fight.