(Frank Vargo, the National Association of Manufacturers’s vice president for international economic affairs, is blogging from Geneva this week at the ministerial meeting of the WTO. This is his first report.)

This afternoon, Monday, November 30, 2009, marks the official start of the 2009 Geneva Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Whether by design or coincidence, the Ministerial starts on the 10th anniversary of the failed Seattle Ministerial, which opened on November 30th, 1999. November 2009 is also the 8th anniversary of the launch of the Doha Round of trade negotiations.

I am in Geneva, and I was at Seattle. There are similarities and differences. The anti-globalization protests at Seattle were vicious, lengthy, and very destructive. So far, the protests in Geneva have been relatively mild, with some destruction, but limited to a small minority of the demonstrators. We’ll see what happens today.

There are also similarities in the status of the negotiations. The Seattle Ministerial failed not because of the demonstrators but because of failure to reach agreement - principally between the United States and Europe over agriculture and sectoral agreements in industrial trade. Agriculture seems, after eight years of negotiation, to be agreed but for a handful (albeit a difficult handful) of issues, but the sectoral trade agreements (eliminating tariffs in major industrial sectors) is still an unresolved issue.

The Ministerial meeting that starts today ostensibly is not for the purpose of negotiating the Doha Round. Instead the official focus is on reviewing the WTO’s activities and its contribution to development. In talking with people, though, it is clear that Doha is the big undercurrent. The hope is that with so many trade ministers gathered in one place, informal discussions can lead to a narrowing of differences among countries that can clear the way for negotiations early next year.

If those differences are not narrowed, it will be extremely difficult to wrap up the Doha Round in 2010, which is the current objective (the first goal was 2005). The differences are still profound. In the key area of manufactured goods, which comprise about 70 percent of world trade in goods and services, the gulf that has been there since the round started is still there: The advanced developing countries are unwilling to provide major cuts in their tariffs and trade barriers.

In July, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced it would accept public comments on the U.S. free trade agreement with Colombia. The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed on November 22, 2006, and if put into effect would lower tariffs on U.S. exports to the South American democracy. (USTR web resources.) Unfortunately, Congress has failed to act because of domestic political considerations, specifically the power of organized labor. The delay has made U.S. exporters less competitive and reinforced the image of the U.S. government as an unreliable negotiating partner. (Speaker Pelosi’s unprecedented move last year to set the trade agreement aside did the most damage in that last regard.)

The Obama Administration said it was soliciting additional comments to identify concerns and find a way to move forward with the agreement. The comment period closed September 15 (USTR statement, and the National Association of Manufacturers submitted its comments letter making the manufacturers’ case for the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Excerpts:

The U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement has the potential to have a significant positive affect on U.S. exports. There will be three types of effects: (1) expansion of U.S. exports stemming from the reduction and elimination of Colombian tariffs on U.S. production; (2) expansion of U.S. exports through the reduction of non-tariff barriers in Colombia and the trade facilitation measures they are committed to take; and (3) preservation of existing U.S. exports that would otherwise be lost if Colombia maintains its expansion of trade agreements with other nations who compete with the United States in manufactured goods, like Canada, Brazil or the European Union. Together, these three effects could total as much as $1.2 billion, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) analysis of the Colombia TPA.

While almost all of Colombia’s exports enter the United States duty-free, U.S. manufacturers face
significant tariff barriers in Colombia. Colombia’s average import duty on manufactured goods is 11.3
percent. These duties, however, are assessed not only on the invoice value of the goods but also on the freight and insurance charges (known as the “C.I.F value”). When other charges are applied as well, the effective import duty on manufactured goods is 14 percent.

A wide variety of U.S. industrial products will benefit from the immediate reduction of these tariffs, the vast bulk of which would be eliminated immediately upon implementation of the agreement. The ITC’s analysis shows the largest increases in U.S. exports will be chemicals, rubber and plastic products, machinery and equipment, and motor vehicles and automotive parts. NAM analysis shows other sectors that stand to gain include processed food products, electronic and electrical equipment, and transportation equipment.

The manufacturing sector has lost about two million jobs in the recession, the recovery is just starting — we hope — and yet Congress has just ignored a trade deal that would encourage U.S. exports of manufactured products. The economic damage from this inaction will only worsen as other countries export and lock up market share.

So here’s a clear, specific step Congress can take to support U.S. manufacturing jobs: Enact the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

AP, “Administration to reinvent Mexican truck program“:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will try to reinvent a program to allow Mexican trucks full access to U.S. highways.

An 18-month-old pilot program that allowed a few Mexican trucks beyond a border buffer zone died when President Barack Obama signed a sweeping $410 billion government spending bill on Wednesday. The bill barred spending on the pilot program.

A spokeswoman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Debbie Mesloh, said Obama has told the office to work with Congress, the Transportation and State departments and Mexican officials to come up with legislation to create “a new trucking project that will meet the legitimate concerns” of Congress and U.S. commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

That statement presumes it was “legitimate concerns” of Congress that led to the program being killed. And presumes that you can reconcile those “concerns” with the U.S. NAFTA commitments.

But the braking force was organized labor, wasn’t it? Since the Teamsters are fundamentally opposed to NAFTA, there’s no reconciling to be had. And the United States adds more evidence to its reputation as being an unreliable trading partner.

(Hat tip: Brian Faughnan, who comments, “Mexico is within its treaty rights to retaliate, and they’re likely to begin the process before long. Without even addressing the issue, Obama has soured relations with one of our most important trading partners and energy suppliers.” Well, to be fair, the last in a long line of sour-ers.)

President Bush spoke to a gathering of the American Enterprise Institute today at the Mayflower Hotel, answering questions from the AEI’s Christopher DeMuth. We appreciated this comment from the President:

I’m worried about protectionism. Protectionism tends to be the twin of isolationism. And I’m worried about protectionism because if you study the economic past, protectionism is what caused the Great Depression to be a greater depression — Smoot-Hawley tariff. If you’re interested in development and helping poor nations become less poor, then you ought to be an advocate for trade. It’s one thing to give out grants, but the amount of wealth generated by trade overwhelms the amount of money that the world gives out in grants.

Which reminds us of this recent comment by Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute after Rep. Becerra decided not to become U.S. Trade Representative:

Not only would successful completion of the Doha round bring great benefit to the US, it would be the single best thing Obama could do for international development. The assembled economic superstars of the Copenhagen Consensus found that it would bring $17 billion worth of benefits to developing countries by 2015. However, because the benefits get bigger as those countries develop, projecting them out to the end of the century results in trillions of dollars of benefits, which will translate into such things as increased resiliency to extreme weather events, which means much less damage from global warming (if it happens). A joined-up thinker would make trade his #1 anti-global-warming strategy, if nothing else. Instead, we have a strategy aimed at making people worldwide poorer by raising energy costs.

BusinessWeek, “Obama Said To Pick Xavier Becerra for US Trade Rep”

Is another key economic post about to be filled by President-Elect Barack Obama? Even as he called a Chicago press conference to announce the expected nomination of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to head the Commerce Department this morning, Washington was filled with talk that he has settled on a little-known California Congressman to be US Trade Representative. Congressional Quarterly reported that Obama has asked Xavier Becerra , who has represented Los Angeles in the House of Representatives for 15 years, to fill the key post. The US Trade Representative is the government’s primary negotiator on trade agreements such as the now stalled Doha Round—aimed at expanding trade in services and other sectors and reforming agricultural subsidies—or pacts such as those set with Columbia and South Korea which are stuck in Congress.

The story cites a number of business and free-market sources concerned about Becerra’s mixed record on trade — anti-CAFTA, anti-trade promotion authority, but pro trade agreements with Peru and Chile. While he voted for NAFTA, he now expresses regrets. We note that Becerra has been moving up on Ways & Means and had leadership aspirations — recently being elected caucus vice-chairman — making party-loyal votes increasingly important.

We collected Rep. Becerra’s votes on NAM Key Votes related to trade since the 106th Congress (1999-2000).

You can read them in the extended below.

UPDATE (6:20 p.m.): From Reuters:

“Looking at his voting record, he’s certainly not a protectionist and he’s certainly not a total free trader,” said Frank Vargo, vice president for international economic affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers.

“If he were selected, I would not see it as a sign the administration is throwing in the towel on trade. I believe he would have an open mind and be pragmatic.”

Vargo said he was convinced Obama and manufacturers share the same goal of expanding trade, despite some differences.