Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrade -- Partnership or Putsch?
http://www.epi.org/publication/partnership-putsch/EUGENE In 2010, I sat across the table from Assistant US Trade Representative Barbara Weisel, who was responsible for negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the mega-regional free-trade treaty among Vietnam, Malaysia, and ten other Pacific Rim countries that President Barack Obamas administration wants to conclude in the coming weeks. At the time, I was Senior Policy Adviser for the US House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor a position that made me the top congressional staff member responsible for upholding labor standards in international trade treaties.
The purpose of the meeting was for Congress to understand what steps the Obama administration was taking to protect American workers from being forced into unfair competition with workers from low-wage trading partners. I asked Weisel what I thought was a simple question: What is the White Houses position on democracy? Weisel claimed not to understand, so I explained: A majority of congressional Democrats supported the principle that the United States should sign trade agreements only with countries that are democracies.
Other democracies feel the same way. For example, trade agreements negotiated by members of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly the British Commonwealth) contain just such a provision. The logic is obvious: If we in developed democracies had lacked the right to protest, speak out, organize unions, and vote for representatives of our choosing, we would never have ended child labor or established the eight-hour workday. Having used these rights to raise our own living standards, we should not now put developed countries workers in direct competition with workers who lack the basic freedoms needed to improve their own conditions.
But my explanation did not help. Weisel stated simply that we have no position on democracy. I pressed her on how the White House planned to deal with, for example, Vietnam a country where children as young as 14 are forced to work 12-hour days, and where there is no right to free speech, no right to protest, no right to strike, and no freedom of association. Oh, you can have labor rights without democracy, Weisel insisted. She demurred when asked to name an example.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 388 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trade -- Partnership or Putsch? (Original Post)
xchrom
Jan 2014
OP
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)1. Screw The Poor And Middle Class Partnership
And it's being "fast tracked":
This, then, is the future that the TPP holds out: a kind of Potemkin democracy, in which citizens are free to choose their flags and holidays but cannot afford to enact any laws that might reduce international investors profits. Workers wages in the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and other developed countries would be inexorably competed down toward those of lower-wage trading partners, while developing-country workers would find it increasingly difficult even in nominal democracies to improve their standard of living.
<snip>
As a political scientist, I am sometimes asked how it is possible for democracies to enact laws that run counter to the interests of the vast majority of voters. They do so, in part, by shunning any commitment to democracy itself. There is no clearer example of this than the TPP, which almost certainly constitutes the single biggest threat to the preservation or creation of any signatory countrys middle class.
<snip>
As a political scientist, I am sometimes asked how it is possible for democracies to enact laws that run counter to the interests of the vast majority of voters. They do so, in part, by shunning any commitment to democracy itself. There is no clearer example of this than the TPP, which almost certainly constitutes the single biggest threat to the preservation or creation of any signatory countrys middle class.
(emphasis mine)