U.S. and Korean negotiators are arriving in Seattle for talks this week on a free-trade agreement between the countries. Trade-dependent Cascadia should support increasing trade -- but not at all costs.
This week's meetings are the third in a year-long series of meetings over the U.S.-Korea pact. They're notable in Seattle as the first major trade talks since the collapse of the WTO round in 1999.
But the venue is far less important for Cascadia than the potential long-term impact of a flawed deal. Indeed, many labor groups oppose any trade deal because of the threat to existing workers.
These negotiations shouldn't be a choice between free trade or no trade. That's the false premise set up by supporters of the Bush administration's pursuit of free-trade agreements to create a patchwork of lopsided deals that favor U.S. corporate interests. Such bilateral deals don't require the sacrifices necessary to make international trade truly work better.
In the current negotiations, Korea wants more market access and the U.S. wants intellectual property rules and financial deregulation. We shouldn't settle for that kind of bilateral horse trading. As host, Cascadia officials should instead insist that the U.S. put its will behind a comprehensive trade pact -- through the WTO -- that would benefit all parties.