Still On Hold Israel's free trade agreement with the United States, a major_ key economic stability, has not resulted in the expected bonanza. Eighteen months after Israel and the United States signed a landmark free- trade agreement, the anticipated economic bonanza has yet to be felt in Jerusalem. The agreement — the result of two years of tough negotiations — is never- theless still regarded by Israel as an essential precondition for economic growth and stability. Instead of waiting with outstretched hands for congressional aid (which is, in any case, expected to fall from around $3.4 billion in 1986 to around $1 billion this year), Israel's plan is to trade its way towards self-sufficiency and, not in- cidentally for many Israelis, to self-respect. The U.S. administration, under pres- sure to cut back on foreign aid, would welcome a decrease in Israel's economic dependence. It also sees the U.Sdsrael Free Trade Agreement (FTA), under which mutual import tariffs will be gradually phased out by 1995, as a possible model for future American trade relations with other developing countries. There is also the factor of strong political support in Washington for a special trading relationship with a small, embattled democracy that is bar- red from trading with almost all of its "natural" trading partners — its neighbors in the Middle East. When Israeli negotiators sat down with their American counterparts to hammer out the agreement, they quick- ly found that there was precious little sentiment in the determination of the American officials to cut the best possi- ble deal for their own exports. "The Americans feel they have been badly burned by international. trade agreements that open up American markets but do not offer real reciproci- ty," said a Trade Ministry official in Jerusalem. Negotiations were, therefore, begun on the basis of full reciprocity and were fur- ther complicated by vigorous lobbying from American special interest groups, particularly from the textile industry, which, while not regarding Israeli tex- tiles as a threat, were feeling a cold wind blowing from low-cost, Far East markets. (Indeed, the final agreement leaves room for Israeli textile quotas). The Americans also insisted on a , clause in the agreement which commits both countries to work towards a liberalization in services, which will have the effect of giving American banks, in- surance companies and other service organizations eventual access to the Israeli market. Israel, on the other hand, felt it had an advantage in that -it already has a free-trade agreement with the European community. Since 1977, Israeli exports have entered Europe duty free, with the tariff on European imports to Israel gradual- ly reducing to zero by 1989. "Our first job was to explain to the Americans just how a free-trade agree- ment works," said an Israeli official. "They still don't understand that they can't unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, but they're learning." Prior to the free-trade agreement with America, Israel already had, under the Generalized System of Preferences Agreements between developed and developing countries, duty free access to the United States for some 300 items — notably diamonds, gold jewelry, civilian aircraft and aviation components, high- tech medical equipment, metal products and chemicals. Largely because of this, and the strengthening of the dollar at the time, trade between Israel and the United States increased dramatically between 1980 and 1985 when, for the first time, Israeli exports to America, at $2.1 billion, exceeded the value of American by $400 million. In 1986, the first year of the FTA, however, there was no great increase in trade — in the first ten months of 1986, Israel exported $1.65 billion worth of goods to the U.S. while importing $1.33 worth of goods from America. This disappointing start, say trade of- ficials in Jerusalem, was due partly to the weaker dollar, partly to Israeli manufacturers, who have yet to adapt to a new, demanding market. "What we aim for is a steady 10 to 11 percent annual growth in trade with the United States," said an Israeli official. "But, more important than the trade figures during the next few years is the long-term pattern. "Without' the agreement, it would have been difficult to develop the economy in the right direction, par- 0 titularly in hightech fields, where we feel Israel has the mobility, inventiveness and skilled manpower to find a niche in the American market?' Israel's commercial attaches in the United States are constantly on the lookout for potential markets, including the lucrative American government pro- curement tenders which are now open to Israeli bidders. And Israel's Trade Ministry is encouraging small exporters to get together to create marketing companies. The Israeli government also hopes that the number of American companies involved in joint ventures with Israeli companies will increase from the present 150-odd. Eventually, it would like to see joint Israeli-U.S:European consortiums take advantage of Israel's high-quality, low-cost research and development potential. Israeli trade experts are also seeking ways to exploit Israel's unique position of low-tariff trade relations with both Europe and the United States. It is hoped that Israel might become a "bridge" between these two vast mar- kets by importing partly finished goods and finishing them for re-export. An American expert on international trade, Dr. Howard Rosen, of the Insti- tute for International Economics in Washington, recently warned Israelis that while the formalization of trade relations with the U.S. was indeed an achievement, there could still be dif- ficult days ahead. There was, he said, "considerable op- position to this [FTA] agreement in the United States and it was heard loud and clear by policymakers in Washington." Israeli businessmen and politicians, he said, should not assume that . their country's unique relationship with America will exempt them from Ameri- can moves to protect its domestic in- dustry and the three million jobs threatened by the U.S. trade deficit. "Congressmen may have unswerving support for Israel when it comes to financial aid and military assistance," said Dr. Rosen, "but when forced to choose between saving jobs in Israel at the expense of local jobs, they will almost always opt for the latter — and certainly when their own jobs are at risk. HELEN DAVIS