Whoever emerges as the Democratic Party's nominee for America's presidency, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, can count on the overwhelming support of the Caribbean diaspora in the fall election.

Blacks vote disproportionately for the Democrats and emigrants from the Caribbean are no exception. If Barack Obama is the candidate, as increasingly seems to be the likelihood, expect the black and Caribbean turnout in favour of the Democrats to be even greater than in the past.

Whether for Obama or Clinton, it is important that our vote is based not only on emotion. Caribbean people must leverage their ballots to ensure that, in the end, United States (US) policy, especially under a Democratic presidency, is of value to this region. We raise this matter out of concern for statements, being made by both Clinton and Obama, which have all the hallmarks of protectionism. That is potentially disastrous for the Caribbean, not least the Caribbean Community (Caricom).

Neither candidate has particularly addressed our section of the region, but both have spoken with dissatisfaction about America's global trade pacts, targeting specifically the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which covers the US, Canada and Mexico. Essentially, NAFTA allows for the free movement of goods and services between the member countries. In terms of value, it is perhaps the biggest trade agreement in the world.

But both Clinton and Obama have been preaching that NAFTA is responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in America, especially in Midwest states, like Ohio, where they contested primaries yesterday. They have sought to outdo each other with tough talking and promises to renegotiate the agreement on winning the presidency.

"I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labour and environmental standards that are enforced," Obama remarked in an Ohio debate. Clinton was forthright that she would scrap the agreement if Canada and Mexico do not agree to a renegotiation.

These positions may, in part, be driven by the support of trade unions for the Democratic Party, and the need for candidates to pander to voters in the Rust Belt regions, as a memo by a Canadian official claimed to have been the private assurance of an Obama adviser.

We are not sanguine. Indeed, we worry that their posture may reflect a deeper protectionist instinct among the candidates. On the face of it, this issue may not appear of great import to our region. Any such assumption is wrong.

For more than two decades Caribbean Basin countries have enjoyed a preferential trade arrangement for most of their products. The region, under a separate arrangement, has preference for the export of ethanol to the US.

Since these agreements were first pushed through by President Reagan, they have come under periodic attacks from Congress. And, it is also true that the access NAFTA provides to Mexico has eroded the Caribbean's advantage. An anti-free trade and unsympathetic person in the White House can only exacerbate the problem.

Caribbean leaders and West Indians in the US diaspora must tell Clinton and Obama of our concerns.