In the early 2000s, after Michael Froman decamped from former US president Bill Clinton’s Department of the Treasury for Wall Street, he called his old law school colleague Lori Wallach, now an antiglobalization activist, with an unusual proposal.
Would she fly to Citigroup’s training center in Westchester County, New York, to explain to company executives from around the world that liberal activists who had derailed a WTO expansion were not all fuzzy-headed anarchists and should be taken seriously?
“Really?” she said, shouting incredulously to the assistant who took the call, before making an offer she figured he would have to refuse. “Tell them my speaking fee is US$20,000, and I need a private plane right to Westchester.”
Demands met, her assistant shouted back, “We should’ve asked for US$50,000.”
Wallach, the longtime leader of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch and a skeptic on what she calls “job-killing” trade agreements, and Froman, the US Trade Representative trying to land the largest trade accord in a generation, have occupied different worlds and economic stratospheres since their days at Harvard Law School.
However, their lives keep intersecting in policy imbroglios. Officials in Froman’s office — who dispute Wallach’s version of the Citigroup episode — denounce her as an alarmist demagogue whose organization has used distortion and scare tactics to discredit free trade. Wallach and her liberal allies call Froman a toady to corporate America — and arrogant to boot.
As the US Congress considers giving another Harvard Law colleague from that era, US President Barack Obama, special “fast-track” authority to negotiate a 12-nation Pacific trade accord, the two lawyers find themselves on opposing armies in one of the biggest legislative fights of the Obama presidency. Among those nations are Japan, Australia and Chile, and smaller economies like Brunei, Peru and Vietnam.
Loyalties to the two opposing forces are stark.
“I’ve questioned Froman on Brunei. I’ve questioned him on food safety. I’ve questioned him on not doing anything when Peru walked back from environmental regulations. Nothing,” fumed US Representative Rosa DeLauro, a fierce foe of the trade promotion authority legislation nearing House consideration and of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that such authority would ease to completion.
By contrast, “Lori Wallach? She’s got such granular knowledge,” she said. “She’s my source of information and knowledge.”
Republicans have lauded Froman for his full-throttle effort to secure the trade accord and his constant availability to them. Likewise, US Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat more open to the trade bills, shrugged off the hostility expressed by many in his party.
“When I’m asking burning questions about human rights and labor rights and the environment and communist Vietnam, I know I’m dealing with a professional,” he said of Froman.
Clearly, though, many lawmakers have lost patience with Froman. As a result, a hard-fought compromise on the trade promotion bill approved by the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees two weeks ago practically legislates better relations.
One unusual provision says that if members of the US Congress request a meeting or ask the trade representative a question, his office has to respond. The bill would also allow congressional aides with the proper security clearance to go into rooms with the TPP texts and read them without lawmakers or officials from the trade representative’s office present.
“This is not personal,” said US Senator Bernard Sanders, another opponent of the trade effort. “It’s clearly the rules that have been established in terms of transparency. It’s been a disgrace, frankly.”
Fomenting much of that umbrage is Wallach, whose tactics, detailed treatises and Capitol Hill briefings have torn apart the chapters of the Pacific accord that have leaked out. She has castigated Froman’s tight control over the contents of the agreement and dismissed efforts by Republicans and Democrats to find common ground as smoke screens for a big-business agenda.
In February, using the e-mail address michaelfromanustr@gmail.com, Public Citizen e-mailed a faux Valentine, ostensibly from Froman, saying: “If I have betrayed your trust, I am sorry that you feel that way. I’ve been so focused on convincing you to take the Fast Track trip with me and buy those trade deals I love, I’ve said some things that, in retrospect, were not true.”
Specifically, Public Citizen accused him of misrepresenting the results of past trade agreements.
Wallach’s role as antagonist to Froman has been decades in the making. At Harvard, the two ran in very different circles. The closest they came was a small campus building that housed both the Harvard Law Review, where the future president and his future trade negotiator were editors, and the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, where she was an officer.
As for the future president, Wallach worked with him during a divisive campaign to bring more diversity to the Harvard Law faculty and again on an effort to save Harvard’s program advising law students on public interest careers, said John Bonifaz, a campaign finance reformer and Wallach ally who was at Harvard at the time.
Froman was part of neither effort.
“He was more a corporate law type,” Bonifaz said. “A lot of people at law school were focused on going out and making a ton of money.”
In fact, that was not Froman’s initial career path. Straight out of law school, he went to Albania to help that tiny impoverished nation’s legal system. He spent most of the 1990s in the Clinton administration, at the White House and at the US Treasury, finally following former US Treasury secretary Robert Rubin to Citigroup in 2001, only to return to Washington in 2009 to join the Obama White House as an emissary to international economic organizations.
Through it all, his path kept crossing Wallach’s. In 1998, she bedeviled the Clinton administration with her campaign to deny the president new fast-track trade authority, a fight her side won. In 1999, as Rubin’s chief of staff at the US Treasury, Froman clashed with her over international efforts to expand the WTO, a campaign that died after antiglobalization activists rioted in Seattle.
Recalling her appearance before Citigroup executives at Froman’s behest, she said that ultimately she did not take the US$20,000 speaking fee, settling for her standard, much smaller amount and a commercial flight. She told the executives that trade agreements were protecting corporations at the expense of poor people, keeping pharmaceutical prices high and access to food difficult.
US Trade Representative spokesman Matt McAlvanah took issue with Wallach’s account.
Froman “doesn’t recall Ms Wallach from law school,” he said. “He does remember that she attended a Citigroup meeting but that her demands for a private jet and an exorbitant speaker fee were rejected. She participated anyway.”
Their last one-on-one meeting took place three years ago, when he was Obama’s emissary to the Group of 20 and Group of 8 international economic organizations. The meeting was cordial but unproductive, she said. Late last year, Froman attended a meeting of liberal and labor groups to pitch fast-track status and the TPP negotiations, running into Wallach again.
“He had his head handed to him,” she recalled.
The TPP would be the most significant trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1993, linking nations representing 40 percent of the world’s economic output.
Many of those negotiating partners — especially Japan — have said they cannot agree to enter the partnership unless the US Congress grants the president trade promotion authority, which would allow the US Congress an up-or-down vote on the final accord without the right to amend it. Without such authority for the president, negotiators would be afraid to sign off on an agreement, only to see it muddied by the US Congress.
“If they like the trade agreement, they like Mr Froman,” said US Senator Richard Durbin, the US Senate’s No. 2 Democrat and a skeptic on free-trade agreements. “The critics say he is too secretive, and I think the administration is trying to change that now.”
Wallach said she offered advice to her old adversary a year ago that he should have taken: Publish the text of the trade agreement. If the accord was so great, then everyone should be able see it, she says she told him. Otherwise, people would believe what they wanted to believe. He declined, much to her advantage.
“If I was the White House, I wouldn’t want him on the Hill anymore,” she said, with some good cheer. “For obvious reasons, I’m for having him there every day.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers