At first glance, vehement anti-globalisation rhetoric expressed by American politicians campaigning for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination provides little comfort to New Zealand hopes of forging closer trade ties with the US.
These views are important from a New Zealand perspective if one assumes American voters are likely elect a Democrat in November to twin the majority Democrat control of both houses of Congress seized from the Republicans a year ago.
Relations between the two countries have warmed sufficiently during the past two years that prospects for a free-trade agreement have never been greater.
Tantalising as those prospects are, they remain elusive while the Democrat majority in Congress persists with its filibustering approach to the passage of bilateral trade agreements negotiated by the Bush administration.
Since wresting control of Congress a year ago, the Democrats have disrupted the administration's bilateral trade timetable by delaying the passage of FTAs with Peru (passed) and Colombia, Panama and South Korea (all pending).
More importantly, they let the president's Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) lapse after it expired on July 1. TPA gives US presidents delegated congressional authority to initiate and negotiate bilateral trade deals that the Congress can approve or reject but cannot amend or filibuster.
Without TPA being renewed, Mr Bush cannot present a Doha treaty to the Congress for ratification either, should a successful multilateral trade agreement eventuate from the current World Trade Organisation negotiations.
Without congressional ratification, there would be no Doha, which in turn has major implications for New Zealand farmers seeking a more open agricultural trading market.
Of the leading contenders for the Democrat presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are the most trenchant critics of globalisation.
Mrs Clinton earned a rebuke last month from EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson for an interview she gave the Financial Times, in which she said she would ask hard questions about whether it was worth reviving the Doha round if she were elected.
She said she believed that theories underpinning free trade might no longer hold true in the era of globalisation. She has called previously for the US to take "time out" on new trade agreements.
Mr Mandelson described the former first lady's views as "disappointing," "misplaced" and symptomatic of a new trend toward protectionism in the west.
Mr Edwards said last month that for far too long, presidents from both parties had entered into trade agreements, such as the North America Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) signed by President Clinton in 1993.
"They had promised that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities," he said. "Instead, too many of these agreements have cost jobs and devastated towns and communities across this country."
Another leading Democrat presidential contender, Barack Obama, is more moderate on free trade and might be more conciliatory toward New Zealand than either Mrs Clinton or Mr Edwards.
Mr Obama is not opposed to Nafta but favours amending it to add labour agreements, an approach New Zealand typically seeks to replicate in its trade negotiations.
NZ-US Council executive director Stephen Jacobi does not deny the hard line taken on trade by the Democrats, but prefers to keep an open mind on where trade relations might head under a Democrat president.
"Bill Clinton wasn't very positive about trade either but he turned out to be the one of the most free-trade advocating presidents there's ever been," Mr Jacobi said.
Trade Minister Phil Goff late last year raised the prospect of the US, and possibly Canada and Mexico, joining the so-called P4 trans-Pacific trade agreement, which involves New Zealand, Singapore, Chile and Brunei.
The Americans are said to be keen to be involved, although the absence of a TPA yet again could provide a hurdle to this.
"We don't care what particular mechanism or pathway is chosen to move to freer trade between our two countries as long as we get there within a reasonable time frame,'' Mr Jacobi said.
US entry into P4 would overcome perceived barriers to an New Zealand-US FTA, under which New Zealand would stand to benefit greatly, but the US less so.
"Being a small economy, we don't represent a significant market opening for the US to take enough interest [in an FTA]. Obviously, if we're part of a bigger grouping then that doesn't apply."
In the meantime, the council was focusing on building up a New Zealand constituency in the US and "reaching out" to new Democratic legislators.
Mr Jacobi said it was "inevitable" that while in campaign mode, Democratic candidates would take on board voter concerns about assistance for workers displaced by globalisation and competition from China.
"When they get into government, they see the other side of the ledger: US enterprises need to export to be successful - the US is a giant global economy that can't disengage with the rest of the world," he said.
If the Democrats were talking about a "kinder, gentler" trade liberalisation New Zealand fitted into that category, Mr Jacobi said.
"We have these sorts of agreements on labour and the environment. That's always been a key thing for us."
Mr Jacobi said a future Democrat administration might be more willing than people thought to contemplate closer bilateral trade ties with New Zealand, "since we are like-minded already on those sorts of things."
"Maybe that will ease the way for us," he said.National Business Review
