Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Rage in Brazil

Mass protests erupt in the biggest cities of Brazil.  Slideshow 

Photo

The Afghan Army

The many faces of the Afghan National Army, which has taken over security of the country from NATO.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Obama champions exports in overture to business

WASHINGTON | Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:34pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Wednesday launched a drive to double U.S. exports over the next five years in a move that reaches out to business groups and Republicans who have criticized his inaction on trade.

"We need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America," Obama said.

"So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America," Obama said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has locked horns with Obama on healthcare and a number of other issues during his first year in office, has been urging him for months to set a national goal to double exports.

To accomplish that goal, Obama announced a "national export initiative" to help farmers and small businesses sell more of their goods overseas, and also promised to reform export controls that high-tech manufacturers say are out of date.

A recent study for the National Association of Manufacturers estimated modernizing the controls could boost U.S. exports by $56 billion annually within the next 10 years without jeopardizing national security.

Obama said he also wanted closer trade ties with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Those three countries have signed trade deals with the United States. But the pacts have been stalled for years because of Democratic party opposition.

His reference to the trade deals is an olive branch to Republicans, who have fought Obama on his big initiatives like healthcare reform and last year's economic stimulus law.

But Daniel Price, a lawyer at Sidley Austin and former White House adviser to George W. Bush, said many would be "puzzled" by Obama's failure to explicitly urge approval of the deals and instead only call for stronger trade ties.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk replied that Obama has given clear orders not to lose any chance to create jobs in the United States.

"President Obama has directed USTR to work to resolve outstanding issues in order to find ways forward on these agreements, and USTR is doing that work," the aide said.

DEMOCRATS DIVIDED

Republicans have argued that if Obama is serious about boosting exports, he should push for approval of the three trade deals negotiated by the Bush administration.

That risks badly dividing Democrats, many of whom blame the North American Free Trade Agreement of the early 1990s and China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 for millions of lost U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Obama said the United States would lose jobs if it "sits on the sidelines" while other countries are busy negotiating trade agreements to open markets. At the same time, the United States must rigorously enforce its trade deals to make sure other countries play by rules, he said.

Obama promised to push for closer trade ties in Asia, an apparent reference to his administration's plan to negotiate a regional trade deal in the Asia Pacific.

He also said the United States would continue to push for a deal in the Doha round of world trade talks that opens up global markets.

The Doha round was launched in November 2001 with the goal of helping poor countries prosper through trade.

But negotiators missed their original goal of getting a deal by January 2005 and the talks remain bogged down.

A senior European Union trade official recently blamed the United States for the bleak state of the negotiations, saying other countries still do not know after more than eight years of talks what Washington needed to reach a deal.

U.S. trade officials say they have been clear that advanced developing countries like China, India and Brazil must offer bigger market openings in exchange for cuts in farm subsidies and in agricultural and manufacturing tariffs that the United States is being asked to make.

(Reporting by Doug Palmer; Editing by Stacey Joyce and Eric Walsh)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
Ghandiolfini wrote:
I can’t see what exports have to do with national security. Why not export another war and create two million military jobs in occupied countries ? The oil can then simply be imported from these countries too, so we save on transport costs, tariffs and large oil conglomerate price fixing. Exports up, imports down, is that not the aim ? Otherwise do transfers from financial and capital accounts to the trade account by selling off government assets.

The fiscal, monetary, international trade/finance drags and multipliers and the US’s insistence on doing things on its terms have come to bite it in the heel. A marriage is quick, a divorce takes years to untangle and unwind, especially when there are children involved.

Jan 28, 2010 2:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
Pete_Murphy wrote:
Presidents have advocated boosting exports for decades by “opening new markets.” The problem is that opening new markets always begins with opening ours first, bringing a fresh flood of imports, an ever higher trade deficit and the loss of more manufacturing jobs.

Jan 28, 2010 5:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
Naima wrote:
This is a very good initiative, but the first step in achieving such a goal is to negotiate better trade terms between our trading partners. I have tried to import several products into China and was unsuccessful for 2 reasons 1.) China protects is own industry through layers upon layers bureaucracy and ambiguous laws and regulations 2.) Import duties for US goods in China are very high compared to import duties of Chinese goods to the US. For example if you look up the HS code of plastic garbage bags you will see that the US charges a 3% duty and China charges an 18% duty. The US needs to become more adept at promoting our goods around the world and needs to become more aggressive towards funding/subsidizing through tax breaks and export rebates for organizations who want to export their products abroad. I am astonished to see the shelves stocked with UHT Milk here in China from the EU and Australia but not one liter of US Dairy! What a shame. The US MUST become less import driven and more export driven. We are too concerned about the bottom line and we will do anything to increase our net income and this includes selling ourselves/industry out which we have already done.

Jan 28, 2010 5:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.