Obama ran and won on a platform of fair trade and not free trade. That is not the same as protectionism.By Peter A. Buxbaum. AJOTWith an almost unprecedented crisis hitting the United States economy, issues of international trade will emerge as central to the agenda of the incoming Obama administration. The president-elect has promised a substantial stimulus package to jump-start economic activity and create jobs. Does domestic jobs creation mean a turn towards protectionism? Or, could trade actually figure in an economic stimulus package? The issue of free trade agreements emerged as an important one in the recent presidential campaign. The Obama-Biden ticket came solidly on the side of “fair trade” as opposed to “free trade.” The notion of “fair trade” posits that the United States should negotiate provisions for labor and environmental standards into trade agreements. The thought is that US workers will not be able to compete against their foreign counterparts unless foreign wage rates are brought up to a livable benchmark nor will US products be able to compete in the international marketplace as long as foreign manufacturers in emerging economies do no have to spend money to satisfy environmental requirements. Obama ran on a Democratic platform that took a solidly fair trade position. No future trade agreements, the platform read, “will stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to US investors; [or] require the privatization of our vital public services…” Even now, the president-elect’s website ([url=http://www.change.gov]http://www.change.gov[/url]) insists that Barack Obama and Joe Biden will “fight for fair trade.” The incoming administration, the website says, “…will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. [It] will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks.” The website also says that the North American Free Trade Agreement was “oversold to the American people.” The Obama administration “will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.” While the Obama campaign and Democratic party platform have sided with the fair trade side of the issue, which is not synonymous with protectionism. Business groups have already agreed to a framework whereby labor and environmental standards could be included in future trade agreements. Fair trade, therefore, does not necessarily involve putting the breaks on trade growth. Furthermore, the trade community must still await Obama’s approach once he takes the oath of office and sees things from a new perspective. What really hangs in the balance at this moment are the free trade agreements already negotiated by the Bush administration but not yet approved by Congress. Obama will have plenty of political cover if he chooses to pursue a policy that diverges from a pure free-trade dogma. A Rasmussen poll from earlier this year showed that 73% of Americans believe that a free-trade agreement has had a negative effect on their families. Only 14% say they have benefited from an FTA. Fifty-six% of Americans believe that NAFTA should be renegotiated. Furthermore, a study of the 2008 Congressional elections concluded by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, a Washington group that advocates fair trade, indicated that 35 new fair traders won seats in the US House of Representatives, representing a net gain of 27, and that there was also a net fair-trade gain in the US Senate of six seats. The study also indicated that the fair trade issue is gaining more diverse support. “Campaigning on fair trade is no longer just a Democratic tactic,” said Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch. “Eighteen Republicans won on fair trade ads.” With the fair-trade issue gaining traction among the