Obama shows signs of warming up to trade, needs to do more

TRADE is a problem for the Obama administration. This was illustrated in Monday's reports of the summit between President Obama, Mexican President Felipe Calderón and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Trade is hardly mentioned, yet Canada and Mexico are our largest and third-largest trading partners, respectively.

Remember that Obama started out on the wrong foot about trade. A year and a half ago, he told voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement or pull the U.S. out of it. It was a rash statement.

The story quickly surfaced that an Obama economist had secretly told the Canadian government not to worry. The Obama people hotly denied this, leaving Americans with the choice of believing the candidate for president or the foreign government.

We believed the foreign government. We supported Obama for other reasons and hoped that on trade he would grow in office. Bill Clinton had. Obama could, too.

There are some signs he has. Months ago he set the do-NAFTA-over idea in the closet of forgotten campaign promises. This was good. He appointed pro-trade Gary Locke as secretary of commerce.

But Obama has not pushed for the pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. He has not decided how to settle some big disputes, such as the petition to slap a prohibitive tariff on Chinese tires.

Nor has he settled the question of Mexican trucks. In NAFTA, each side promised access to cross-border cargo by 2001. Canadian trucks come here and nobody raises a fuss. But unions who represent U.S. drivers — not a neutral party — claim Mexican trucks are unsafe, and have persuaded Congress to block them. In March, Mexico retaliated by imposing 10-to-45-percent tariffs on U.S. products, including Washington apples, pears and frozen potatoes.

Obama has said he will settle this. He should, in a way that allows properly equipped trucks. Further, Obama should say, clearly and loudly, that he is for trade and against policies that weigh it down with stones.

Being for trade means being for imports as well as exports. No country can expect to export without importing. The two go together — economically, politically and culturally. A country is either a trading nation or it isn't.

This state made its choice long ago. Most of the rest of America also has — and, if it has not, it could use a push from its new president.