Unions Oppose South American Free Trade Efforts

[OhioChick]

Source: CNSNews

September 17, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - North American, South American and international labor unions on Friday spoke out against a free trade agreement between the United States and Peru and urged the U.S. Congress to block legislation approving the agreement first signed last year.

The deal was signed by trade representatives from both countries in April 2006. The Peruvian government ratified the treaty in June 2006, but the U.S. Congress has yet to approve it. The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the agreement Tuesday.

"The majority of Americans oppose more NAFTA-style trade deals based on their experience, so it's not surprising that unions and consumer, environmental, faith and Latino groups oppose a Peru NAFTA expansion," Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch division of Public Citizen, said in a statement.

The liberal-leaning Public Citizen, created by Ralph Nader, is a national non-profit consumer advocacy organization.


Read more: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200709/NAT20070917a.html

[pampango]

1. I'm a little confused as to whether the unions oppose fair trade or just this version

of it.

"Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said at a Sept. 11 hearing on the agreement that, if passed, it would mark "the first time any free trade agreement ... requires the parties to implement the five core International Labor Organization (ILO) standards." Maybe Baucus is giving it the kiss of death by referring to it as a free trade agreement, even when it contains provisions that make it more of a fair trade agreement.

"Though their reasons for opposing the plan are different, the labor opposition marks a rare case of unity between the labor movement and Republicans in the U.S. Congress who are hesitant to vocally support the plan because of the addition of ILO provisions." Looks like the unions and RW'ers can agree that fair trade has its limitations at least in this case. I didn't see an explanation in the linked article of whether the unions want more fair trade provisions included in the trade deal or oppose any trade deal at all.

Seems to me that, unless one prefers no trade with Peru and the rest of the Third World, fair trade is preferable to free trade (which is a misnomer to begin with). And would someone please stop calling them free trade agreements if they have provisions that make them fair trade agreements.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. Just because it's called "fair trade" doesn't mean that it is

To me it's very suspicious that the Bushies are trying to negotiate a trade agreement with a country that has even lower wages than Mexico.

The very fact that the Bushies are behind it is reason for caution.

[pampango]

3. Agreed. Calling it "fair trade" doesn't necessarily make it fair trade.

My question (poorly stated) was whether there is a of labor, environmental and human rights conditions that would constitute "fair trade" deal with Peru and, therefore, be acceptable. The alternative is that there can never be "fair trade" with the Third World, no matter what conditions are attached to it, due to the fact that their workers have very low wages.

None of us trust Bush, but is there a set of "fair trade" conditions that we can pursue under the next Democratic president?

[Robbien]

4. Farm subsidies are the biggest hurdle to fair trade IMO

All FTA developing nations' economies are devastated by the flood of subsidized farm commodities from the US. Rural populations then have to migrate to urban cities and they become the slave labor pool for global industries. A vicious cycle.

The Democratic party is heavily beholden to factory farm lobbyists.

So to answer your question, if the administration changes parties, I do not see any good movement on the fair trade front.

[pampango]

5. You are right about that.

Neither party can really push for a reduction in farm subsidies without the other party coming to the farmers' "rescue", even if many of the farmers have an "inc" after their names.

It is ironic that, IMHO, there are some Third World countries that would agree to stringent "fair trade" requirements in order to be able to export to the US, but if the US is required to meet any conditions, like agricultural subsidy reform, the prospects for "fair trade" go out the window. They will adjust, but we won't.

We say, "You reform your labor, environmental and human rights laws that are making your people poor and we will let you trade with us." They say, "We will do that for the sake of fair trade, but why don't you reform your agricultural subsidy laws which are making our people poor." We say, "You want us to change something. That's not how this game is played."