Edwards Says Nafta Is Important, but in Need of Change

[Freddie Stubbs]

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Senator John Edwards said yesterday that his proposal to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact he has repeatedly blamed for economic distress, would not significantly cut the flow of jobs abroad.

And even as he criticized the trade agreement, Mr. Edwards described it as "important" to economic prosperity. He said he wanted to promote global trade but that trade pacts should include measures to slow the loss of jobs to other countries.

"I believe that Nafta should exist," Mr. Edwards told editors and reporters of The New York Times at a meeting yesterday in New York, as he sought endorsements heading into next Tuesday's primary. "I think Nafta is important — it is an important part of our global economy, an important part of our trade relations."

"It's important to be straight with people about the jobs issue — about trade and jobs," said Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina. "The kind of trade policy I'm talking about — not an extreme trade policy, but the kind of trade policy I'm talking about — is not going to save all those jobs. And I think people deserve to know that."

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/campaign/24EDWA.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[displacedtexan]

1. Isn't that Kerry's position on NAFTA? Why, I believe it is.

JE must have put a poll in the field.

[maddezmom]

3. yup, sounds familiar doesn't it. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. So perhaps he would have voted for it after all

if he had been in the Senate.

[AP]

8. If it didn't protect jobs/environment, he wouldn't have voted for it.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Don't spin this, AP

From a later post in this thread, referring to the article:

"Mr. Edwards described his views on trade as 'a tick away' from those of the Democratic Leadership Council, a moderate group that has been a champion of free trade, and of former President Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA in 1993."

You can't spin this away. Despite Edwards' rhetoric, his position is virtually the same as Kerry's -- status quo all the way. Nibbling around the edges rather than being bold and going after the root cause of the problem.

Then again, both of them are successful politicians, and that is what most successful politicians do -- nibble around the edges of the problem and represent the status quo.

[AP]

18. You're spinning "a tick away." Dan Schorr said on NPR that the DLC

doesn't like him because he doesn't vote for trade bills that hurt NC jobs. So he's a tick away, and it's enough not to like him.

[revcarol]

28. Maybe those mill workers whose jobs have gone to CHINA would

like to know that.<heavy sarcasm>

He voted for the policy that sent their jobs to China.

[AP]

30. China is CHEATING on that deal. Maybe if they weren't cheating, we could

compete fairly.

[mmonk]

31. I think also

some of the thinking was, yes on losing some textile manufacturing, but we would make it up in other areas of the trade agreement. Are you sure they are cheating in regards to textiles? I think on the textile issue, it was allowing the industry to chase cheap labor in exchange for opening other market specific items.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. now he sounds just like the rest

well that was fun while it lasted

[IrateCitizen]

4. Sorry, John. You just lost me.

One of the MAJOR problems with NAFTA is that it was set up between unequal parties. If it had been just between Canada and the US, it would have been an entirely different matter. In fact, it would have been much more like one of the truly positive trade pacts in the world -- the European Union.

However, the introduction of Mexico into the agreement was not as much about trying to enable Mexico to improve economically as it was about providing a source of cheap labor with little or no environmental regulation. Otherwise, there never would have been the provision outlawing mandatory technology transfers.

Of course, NAFTA has its myriad of other problems, too. The investor-state provision is particularly heinous, as is the complete lack of environmental or labor provisions within the agreement itself.

By only focusing on one SYMPTOM of these trade deals -- job loss -- Edwards and Kerry are doing a MASSIVE disservice to the Democratic electorate. The kind of job flight taking place from the United States under "free" trade is just a symptom of some of the deeper root problems of the phenomenon. I must say that I am deeply troubled by their reluctance to address these deeper problems, and it does not inspire me with much confidence that either will be at all bold in their approaches, but will rather attempt to cure a severed limb by slapping another few band-aids on the wound.

[returnable]

6. Excellent read. Kick

Also from the article:

"Mr. Edwards described his views on trade as 'a tick away' from those of the Democratic Leadership Council, a moderate group that has been a champion of free trade, and of former President Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA in 1993."


Wow, Johnny. That's some opposition :hi:

[AP]

10. Becuase he wants to protect jobs and the envirnoment, and they don't.

[KittyWampus]

15. Maybe Edwards Saw Protectionist Rhetoric Didn't Help Dean

and ALL of the candidates talk about Fair Trade... including Environmental and Labor protections.

It's just that Kerry and Kucinich have extensive actual experience IMPLEMENTING such legislation.

[AP]

22. He has always been FOR trade, and against the exploitation of labor. They

are not mutually incompatible goals. See the Jordan trade deal which he voted yes on.

[mmonk]

7. No kidding?

I knew he was just running on the issue on the moment. The fact he voted for our current trade policies with China which are more damaging in this area than NAFTA was a little indication. He will do what Kerry will do, and that's review and strenghten certain provisions which help level the job picture but not necessarily scrap it outright.

[IrateCitizen]

9. IOW, he'll "nibble around the edges"...

and ignore the real root problems, rather than deigning to be bold and actually address the real problem head-on?

You're right, this isn't much different from Kerry's position, either. And I don't say that because I blame them -- rather, it's because they're both successful politicians, and successful politicians defend the status quo.

[AP]

11. Kerry says he'll do those things, but when those things aren't in the bill

he votes for it anyway.

Edwards has actually voted AGAINST bills that don't have those protections.

[mmonk]

13. to some extent

you are correct on other smaller trade bills. I was not making any arguments on them. I was speaking on the two major ones.

[AP]

17. Cherry picking? The problem with China trade is that China is breaking the

agreement. They're violating the terms of the agreement and it's not clear that trade wouldn't be fair if they weren't.

Trade authority for the pres -- Clinton wanted that, so I'm not clear what kind of litmus test that bill is. Feel free to make your argument.

As for the six or seven regional trade bills, the ONLY one Edwards voted for was with Jordan becuase Jordan law includes environmental and worker protections. Kerry never saw a trade bill he didn't like, He voted for every one.

[mmonk]

19. I wouldn't call the China issue cherry picking

in that it cost, particular his own state which I am a resident, most of the textile jobs. Yes, he has voted against the bills without protections such as the one with Singapore, etc. The problem is the level of trade adding all those together pales to our trade volume with China. I do give him credit though for voting against those.

[AP]

23. China is cheating on that agreement. The agreement would have prevented

them from hurting NC if they followed it.

[mmonk]

24. mostly I think in terms

of tobacco exports, correct?

[AP]

26. textiles is the one I read about, but also violating intellectual property

rights, and dumping just about everything on overseas markets.

[IrateCitizen]

16. What was Edwards' vote on fast track, AP?

By checking in a quick search, I found that he voted YEA on final passage.

Yet, in personally lobbying local Congressional Reps on behalf of the Sierra Club, I am fully aware that the bill did not have ANY language in it that gave specific consideration to environmental or labor concerns.

So, how do you explain this one away? He basically did the same thing that Kerry did -- supported the amendments, but when they didn't pass, voted for the bill anyway.

[AP]

20. Clinton wanted fast track. As I said in my other post, I'm not sure what

kind of litmus test the vote on fast track authority is. Make your arguments.

Every other major country in the world gives its chief executive this authority and still subjects them to regulations (than aren't part of the law that authorizes this authority).

Clearly, fast track is something that's good when you have a responsible president, and bad when you have an irresponsible president. However, it probably doesn't stop congress from coming up with ways to limit bad presidents from doing bad things.

[IrateCitizen]

25. Reread my post and you'll get my point, AP

My point is, having thoroughly examined and lobbied against this bill, it was a giveaway to commericial interests while only mentioning labor and the environment in a passing fashion -- something along the lines of "promote respect for environmental and labor standards" and nothing more.

As you can gather, there isn't too much as far as "teeth" in such a clause....

Now, considering that Bush's true sole purpose in pushing for Fast Track was so that he could get FTAA done under his watch, and that the rules under which he would have been forced to negotiate FTAA said absolutely NOTHING concrete about labor or environmental standards, how does someone explain a vote for this particular Fast Track bill as showing concern for jobs and the environment? There is absolutely NOTHING in it to "prevent a bad president from doing bad things."

In my eyes, it's not something that can be adequately explained -- unless I have a major blind spot on this particular issue, which I don't believe to be true considering the number of hours I spent researching it.

[AP]

27. Tell us more about fast track. In my view, it's going to be a powerful

tool for a Democratic president to use to protect jobs.

I think the point of Fast Track was that it's an appropriate authority for a chief executive to have, it's just that you wouldn't want Bush to have it. But it's hypocritical to say, well, we thought it was logical when Clinton was president, but something happened in 2001, we're not sure what, which makes it's illogical now.

[IrateCitizen]

29. It's a contentious issue

On one hand, the argument can be made (and we used this one) that it undermines the intent of the commerce clause in the Constitution that delegated the authority to regulate all trade to Congress. By placing this authority in the hands of the Executive, the direct representation of citizens is being taken out of the process.

Of course, there is the valid counter to that saying that if Congress is making the rules under which the Executive can negotiate trade, then Congress IS in fact performing its duty of regulating trade.

The problem arises when you begin to look at the rules under which the Executive has been given the authority to conduct trade on "fast track". The entire bill was, predictably, written almost exclusively by and for corporate lobbyists. Every single questionable policy you can think of was included.

Intellectual property rights protecting large pharmaceutical companies' abilities to overcharge? Check.
Pimping for the GM Foods industry and vehemently opposing labelling? Check.
Protecting the copyrighting of living organisms by corporations? Check.
Promoting privatization of every service you can think of under the sun? Check.

You should get the idea by now. Very explicit language was included to protect commericial interests in every manner imaginable. But when it came to labor and the environment, there was ONE F***ING PHRASE that mentioned those concerns, and it just said to "promote environmental and labor concerns".

Just what does that word "promote" mean in the legal sense? It means absolutely NOTHING, that's what it means.

So, the Executive was free to negotiate further trade agreements (CAFTA, FTAA) on behalf of US corporate interests without even blinking an eye over labor or the environment. This was another major point we tried to use, and that I wrote about in an op-ed for my regional paper. We're not against the promotion of commericial interests, per se -- we just think that these commericial interests need to be balanced against labor and environmental concerns.

That should be the responsible approach that every decent-minded politician should take. To their credit, both Kerry and Edwards supported amendments to the bill that addressed these concerns. But when it got down to brass tacks, after the amendments were defeated, the two lined up and voted on behalf of commericial interests.

What that tells me is that their hearts may be in the right place, but when it comes down to a choice between supporting labor/environment and supporting corporate interests, they'll support the corporate interests. It's the same-old "nibble around the edges" approach rather than seeking to attack the root of the problem. Personally, I don't damn them for it, because they are POLITICIANS after all, and therefore their top concern is promoting the status quo. But I also don't allow myself to become deluded in expecting them to be something that they are quite obviously NOT.

[IrateCitizen]

32. What? No comments on this?

I'd figure that people would WELCOME a substansive airing of this issue. :shrug:

[corporatewhore]

14. TweedleDee has better rhetoric

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Edwards and Kerry need to talk to

Kucinich, Nader, and Sanders on this subject and get up to speed on why it's BAD for this and every other country in the world. *sigh*

[redqueen]

33. It is to suffer

These guys either don't care or haven't noticed that multinational corporations are subverting democracy through these FTA's and the WTO.

They either don't care or haven't noticed that the agreements are set up so as to be unchangeable (if the change comes at the expense of the bottom line for multinationals).

Screw the both of them.

[w4rma]

34. "... *slow* the loss of jobs to other countries ..."

The jobs are still moving overseas and the threat is still there to be used to blackmail Americans into lower pay, lower benefits and less environmental protection.

If a Democrat wins the election the loss of jobs must be **reversed** not slowed, or else the Dems will not win a RE-election, IMHO.

[Streetdoc270]

35. please be nice to me

but I have a legitimate question (I think) Why was NAFTA good when Clinton was in Office but bad now? Did no one think of the long term effects when supporting it in the 90's?

[w4rma]

36. NAFTA was bad then too.

I don't even think that most Dems agreed with Clinton back then, either. NAFTA is Republican-leaning policy.

[IrateCitizen]

40. It wasn't good when Clinton was in office. It was bad then, bad now.

Personally, I left the Democratic Party for 7 years following Clinton's push to pass NAFTA, and registered as an independent. And I was only 19 or 20 at the time it was passed, but I saw the writing on the wall even then.

NAFTA was essentially a creation of the Bush I administration. The fact that Clinton fought so hard for its passage should tell you something about the overall flavor of the Clinton WH as viewed from the perspective of a progressive.

[no name no slogan]

42. That's when I dumped the Dems too

NAFTA was the start, "welfare reform" was the final straw. I ditched the Dems until 9/11, when it looks like they may have grown a spine, for a change.

Your arguments against the China deal are also spot on. The "but China is cheating" excuse doesn't hold water, IMHO. We knew for years previously that China was not enforcing IP and copyright laws (like bootlegging software, music and other artistic property) and yet we STILL signed the trade agreement with them and gave them "most favored nation" status.

Also, let's not forget that China has a HORRIBLE human rights record, and stifles political debate and opposition. Don't forget Tienanmen Square-- there was a REASON all those students protested in 1989, and things have not changed that much.

Clinton's trade policies did more to undermine working-class Americans-- they barely made any advances during the Clinton era.

[redqueen]

43. Did Kerry back MFN status for China? Did Edwards?

Honestly. :eyes:

[SidDithers]

37. NAFTA can't be changed.

At least that's my understanding. The only option a party has is to withdraw from the agreement.

No links to back this up, and I very well could be wrong.
Memory is a bit fuzzy this morning :)

Sid

[SidDithers]

39. I take it back...NAFTA can be ammended ...

As long as all parties agree to the ammendments.

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/legal/index_e.aspx?articleid=178

Sid

[redqueen]

41. And 'all parties' means the corporate-appointed stooges that

sit on the tribunals.

I love this game. But it is getting kind of old.

[Adelante]

38. Kucinich is the only one

with daylight on this issue between him and the other Dems.