fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Of Free Trade Agreements and “Key” Allies

Since I objected to Jamie Fly’s abuse of the phrase “key ally,” it’s only fair that I mention that Daniel Griswold does the same thing in a post on the new free trade agreements: When fully implemented, these FTAs will eliminate just about all barriers to trade with three key allies. There are maybe a […]

Since I objected to Jamie Fly’s abuse of the phrase “key ally,” it’s only fair that I mention that Daniel Griswold does the same thing in a post on the new free trade agreements:

When fully implemented, these FTAs will eliminate just about all barriers to trade with three key allies.

There are maybe a handful of truly “key” allies in terms of their significance and military capabilities. Key is a description that emphasizes that the thing being described is of the greatest importance. I suppose a case could be made that South Korea counts as a key ally, but I don’t know that it would be very persuasive. Describing these three states as “key” is just excessive rhetoric that Griswold is using to make the free trade agreements seem more significant and desirable than they are. The habit of referring to every ally as “key” is similar to the bad habit of including virtually everything in the world as a “vital interest.” It becomes impossible to distinguish between what is most important and what is relatively insignificant.

It can’t stressed enough that the Colombian and Panamanian FTAs will have a negligible effect on the U.S. economy, and the Colombian FTA will most likely be a disaster for small Colombian cultivators. KORUS is the largest of the three, and it is also very likely going to prove to be a detriment to the U.S.

P.S. Here is the official list of collective defense agreements to which the U.S. is a party.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here