Canadians urge NAFTA renegotiation

In an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, major Canadian organizations urged him to commit to a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The letter was released just prior to U.S. President Barrack Obama’s February 19 visit to Ottawa.

“Canadaian public opinion is solidly behind the need to renegotiate NAFTA,” the letter pointed out, citing a September poll in which 61 percent of respondents favored that position.

The letter was signed by 26 Canadian organizations, including Oxfam Canada, Sierra Club of Canada, the Council of Canadians, Common Frontiers, Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Auto Workers, and a variety of other unions.

In releasing the letter, Rick Arnold of Common Frontiers said: “We were all promised a golden future under NAFTA, but the reality for the three signatory countries is that the gap between rich and poor has grown exponentially, and government’s ability to set public policy has been curtailed in favor of giving carte blanc to foreign investors.”

Print Page Read more!

Rooting out worker rights abuses abroad

Is there anything that the governments of rich countries can do to integrate human rights into the overseas operations of their multinational corporations? Yes, the government of Norway says, and shows how in a recent statement on corporate social responsibility.

That responsibility does not stop at the Norwegian border, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store said in releasing the policy statement, or white paper.

A key element of that policy urges all Norwegian multinationals – about 100 in number – to enter into “global framework agreements” with global unions to safeguard the rights of workers in foreign countries in conformance with core conventions of the UN International Labor Organization.

Among the Norwegian companies that have already taken that step are StatoilHydro, with an agreement covering 29,500 workers in 40 countries, and Norske Skog, a newsprint producer with 11,000 workers worldwide, both with Norwegian unions and their global union, the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine, and General Workers Unions. (ICEM).

The white paper states that; in countries that do not respect the right to organize and to bargain, multinationals should seek ways to establish some sort of system that permits the voice of workers to be heard in workplaces.

In addition, the white paper provides guidance on corporate responsibility with regard to decent working conditions, the environment, and anti-corruption among other human rights issues.

The government also intends:

-- to address by legislation, through Accounting Act amendments, the duties of corporations to provide information on their actions to implement ethical guidelines, and

-- to strengthen the Norwegian government's “national contact point” for dealing with worker rights complaints alleging violations of the multinational guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

In short, supplementing its efforts to root out worker rights violations through trade negotiations and ILO programs, the Norwegian government intends to use its own powers to regulate corporate behavior beyond its national boundaries.

So far, that’s only an intention, but it’s an intention that the U.S. government would be wise to adopt as its own.
* * *

The government of Australia is considering a similar initiative. See To Embed Huuman Rights in Multinationals.



Print Page Read more!

Passing the buck to Uncle Sam

It is up President Obama to take the lead in opposing the worldwide spread of “protectionism.” Otherwise, says the Economist in its February 7 issue, “America and the rest of the world are in deep trouble.”

The Economist advises the United States to show “forbearance” when foreigners benefit from the multibillion-dollar U.S. stimulus package. Any “Buy American” requirement “would send a disastrous signal to the rest of the world” that would rekindle economic nationalism.

Really?

What’s wrong about giving the troubled American steel industry the first shot at orders for rebuilding American bridges and American school buildings? Why must the U.S. government show “forbearance” if Communist China wins the business with low bids from its government-built, government owned, and government subsidized steel mills?

Oh, but we dassn’t start a trade war. Well, here’s some hot news. Communist China, for one, has long waged a de facto trade war with the United States. And guess who’s won ?

Last year the United States imported $337,789,000,000 worth of goods and services from China -– almost five times more than we exported to China. Year after year, our trade deficit with China balloons further. It quadrupled over the past decade. thanks to our “forbearance.”

The lesson to other countries? Our non-China global trade deficit is astronomical. In 2008, not counting China, the United States imported $411,000,000,000 more in goods and services than we exported despite the global slowdown.

As a nation, we are consuming far more than we produce. Economists have long warned that this disparity could not last, and it can’t. The United States needs to produce more. The shock of the crisis may be the opportune time to begin.

Print Page Read more!

Crisis reversing fight against world hunger

Food and financial crises have added 115,000,000 men, women, and children to the ranks of the world’s hungry since 2007, according to Josette Sheeran, executive director of the UN’s World Food Program.

But it isn’t a problem of food availability, she emphasized. “It is a problem of distribution -– and of greed, discrimination, wars, and other tragedies. There is enough food on earth for every human to have adequate access to a nutritious diet. This is indeed a challenge of the human heart.”

Calling on national governments to take the lead, Sheeran urged that a very small percentage -– 0.7 percent -- of financial stimulus plans be dedicated to fighting hunger.

She spoke February 3 at a Vatican press conference that presented the Lenten message of Pope Benedict XVI, in which he said that the Lenten fast can nourish a spirit that offers help to our suffering brothers and sisters.

Print Page Read more!

Toward a new day for trade

In a letter sent to Congress on February 7, more than 350 organizations representing faith, family farm, labor, consumer, and environmental groups said they strongly support Senate and House action to “replace the failed trade policies of the past with those that deliver broadly shared benefits.”

“Hundreds of groups are now organizing, rolling up their sleeves, pushing for reform, including support for Buy American provisions in the stimulus package,” said Andy Gussert of the Citizens Trade Campaign, which organized the petition to Congress.

The four page letter summarizes the key issues facing decision by lawmakers and the Obama administration.; and specifically expresses opposition to harmful features contained in “hangover” Bush administration free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea.

Among those objectionable features:

-- Foreign investor are granted rights that promote off-shoring and also subject U.S. domestic environmental, zoning, health, and other public interest polices to challenge by foreign investors in foreign tribunals.
-- Food-safety provisions would require the United States to limit import inspection and accept imported food that does not meet our domestic safety standards.
-- Procurement rules would hamstring many reasonable procurement practices of our federal, state, and local governments.

The worsening recession is distracting policymakers from the need to reform the U.S. foreign trade and investment policies. Forgotten is the role that our outmoded trade policies, and their failure to share their benefits more widely, play in fueling economic decline.

Print Page Read more!

Warning about ‘specter’ of protectionism

Under today’s global financial crisis, developing nations can gain more influence in economic globalization if they handle their present opportunity right. So says Dani Rodrik, professor of international political economy at Harvard, in his lead commentary as moderator of the economic development and the global crisis debate launched last month by VoxEU.org/.

In opening a debate on the interests and priorities of developing nations, Rodrik offers the following advice in the context of the U.S. situation, where trade policy is “under severe pressure to provided some redress” for globalization’s adverse impact on workers.

“It will not do much for good for developing nations to raise the specter of protectionism each time such concerns are voiced. The political and economic reality demands a more nuanced and cooperative approach. They should say no to trade protectionism straight and simple.

“But they should be willing to negotiate with advanced nations on avoiding regulatory races to the bottom in such areas as labor standards or tax competition. This is in their long-term self interest. Without buy-in from the middle classes of advanced nations, it will be very difficult to maintain a global trade regime as open as the one we have had in recent years.”

A sound message, but not only for the developing world. When will pundits in the rich world start getting it?


Print Page Read more!

Five lessons for new U.S. trade policies

An experienced American trade negotiator, Robert B. Cassidy, is speaking out with a candor rare among high-ranking trade bureaucrats. Cassidy, a former assistant U.S. Trade Representative,is discussing the mistakes of the past and the lessons that should be learned from them by the Obama administration.

In remarks before a packed audience at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington on January 27, Cassidy, now in private practice, offered “five overarching lessons” to guide any overhaul of U.S. trade policy.

Fortunately, EPI provides the full text of Cassidy’s talk on its Website, from which this report draws his five lessons and a brief explanation of each, as follows:

First: Trade policy should be based on U.S. economic self-interest, not as the equivalent of corporate self-interest, nor as a subset of foreign policy. Cassidy cites the free trade agreement with Korea as one motivated largely by foreign policy objectives, in this case to surround China with bilateral FTAs.

Second: Trade policy as such has only limited reach. Global monetary, fiscal, and competition policies are more important. As the “only country capable of standing up to China,” the United States should take the lead in the WTO in challenging China’s manipulated exchange rate.

Third: The advisory and decision-making processes of trade policy “need to be balanced,” that is enlarged beyond State, Treasury, and Commerce (plus Agriculture occasionally) to include Labor and environmental interests. The present race to the bottom on labor standards should be abandoned, and indeed can be abandoned fully consistent with WTO principles.

Fourth: We need to get our trade relationship with China on a more balanced footing by asserting our interests more aggressively. On our imports of tainted foods, why are we relying on China to safeguard the health of our citizens?

Fifth: Reconsider “trade promotion authority” to make negotiations more transparent and negotiators more responsible in pursuing our objectives.

The administration, according to Cassidy, should take advantage of a “short window of opportunity” to ensure that the benefits of trade “flow to the broader U.S. economy. . . and help achieve other goals such as improved labor standards and environmental objectives.”

Print Page Read more!

Why union membership remains low

The number of workers belonging to unions in the United States grew by 428,000 last year to 16,100,000, mostly thanks to increased membership in the ranks of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other local government employees.

The 2008 union membership rate in the public sector generally – 36.8 percent –stood in stark contrast to the rate in the private sector – 7.6 percent. In other words, government workers were nearly five times more likely to belong to a union than employees in the private sector.

Collective bargaining contracts covered about 1,700,000 workers who themselves refrained from joining a union. These holdouts were distributed about half and half between the public and private sectors.

Exhaustive data on union membership is contained in the latest annual report, “Union Members in 2008,” issued by the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), based on monthly household surveys conducted by the Census Bureau.

The BLS report, which covers 12 pages, does not explain why unions are stronger in the public than in the private sector. Numerous surveys, however, show not only that private business is much more unreceptive to unions than government agencies, but also that U.S. law permits companies to put that attitude into action.

A new Human Rights Watch briefing paper focuses on labor law and practice in the U.S. private sector, without drawing a contrast with the public sector. After reading the 12-page report, however, I cannot help marveling that even 8,255,000 of private sector workers still belong to unions.

U.S. labor law “is weak and riddled with loopholes,” and employers take advantage of that weakness in the law and in its enforcement to vitiate the right of workers to organize. The HRW briefing paper supports those two findings with detailed evidence. For example:

-- Penalties for firing pro-union workers and for otherwise breaching the law are so small that employers dismiss them as a worthwhile cost of doing business.
-- The government run election procedures by which workers vote for or against a union are heavily slanted against the union.
-- Even if workers succeed in winning an election, an employer can stall reaching a collective bargaining agreement to the point of making the victory meaningless.

HRW is among a growing number of organizations supporting Congressional approval of the Employee Free Choice Act. For Human Rights Watch, that passage is “a human rights imperative.”

Print Page Read more!

The case for a huge economic stimulus

More than a third of the U.S. labor force will be plagued by periods of unemployment or underemployment next year if government spending does not surge substantially to spur demand for goods and services. So says a new Issue Brief published by the Economic Policy Institute.

In the absence of a large recovery package, the unemployment rate is expected to reach 10.2 percent in mid-2010, according to the Brief, and middle-income families would earn about $4,700 less in 2010 than they had in 2007,

But the overall statistics “don’t capture the pain” that would impact specific groups of people, warn Lawrence Mishel and Heidi Shierholz, the authors. Those especially hard hit next year would include:

-- Nearly one in five African-Americans in the labor force would be jobless.
-- So would 13.1 percent of Hispanics.
-- Underemployment would reach 18.8 percent of women workers.

In the Brief, entitled “Without Adequate Public Spending, a Catastrophic Recession for Some,” the authors recommend government spending on the order of $600,000,000,000 a year for two years to head off the “catastrophe” they consider otherwise inevitable.


Print Page Read more!

For blacks, depression is already here

For most white people, it’s a recession, but for blacks, it’s already a depression. That’s a conclusion of a new report, “State of the Dream 2009: a Silent Depression,” released on Martin Luther King’s Day, January 15, by a Boston think tank, United for a Fair Economy (UFE).

“People of color have been experiencing a recession for five years,” says Amaad Rivera, UFE’s racial wealth specialist and one of the authors of the 70-page report. “By definition, a long-term recession is a depression.”

Why has this “silent depression” gotten relatively little attention? In large part, according to UFE, because the economic indicators we rely on are not sophisticated enough to mark the racial divide.

The facts, though, are there deep and not so deep in government documents, and the UFE report digs out many of them, as in a UFE chart showing a poverty rate in 2007 of 8.2% among whites and 24.5% among blacks.

Economic inequality and structural racism “were created, so they can also be eliminated,” the UFE report insists, by adopting reforms small and large, immediate and long range. A significant example: taxing work and wealth at the same rate would generate $95,000,000,000 a year in revenue.

“The current economic crisis requires more than a color blind stimulus,” says Dedrick Muhammad, UFE research associate and a co-author of the report. “It requires a complete economic restructuring that addresses the racial wealth divide.”

For more details, check the Website of United for a Fair Economy.

Print Page Read more!

Competition gone bezerk

“Companies [today] are competing with everyone from everywhere for everything.” So say the authors of Globality, a new book about the latest phase of globalization. The Economist quotes those words approvingly in its most recent report on globalization, “A Bigger World.”

Both the book and the Economist favor the global economy as it is, not as it should be. They reflect the perspective of a leading economist, N. Gregory Mankow, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. He holds that when you invoke ethics or morality, you leave the economics department and go over to the philosophy department.

Over at LaSalle University in Philadelphia, a professor of economics, David George, has published a fascinating study, "On being ‘competitive’: the evolution of a word." Diligently, he tracks the six-decade-long evolution of “competitive” as the label for a limited characteristic, or idea, into a universal ideal with frequent perverse results. For example:

“Amazingly, the firm that is least able to be described as ‘competitive’ by the old definition (a single firm in a sea of many firms) now is most able to be described as ‘competitive’ under the new definition (a victorious or most [competitive] firm).”

Most significantly, George shows that "competitiveness" has acquired an excessively high positive value in the business and the public mind. This poses a serious temptation to the Obama administration as a priority goal of its global economic policy. If Obama succumbs, he would be continuing the disastrous policies of the Bush administration.

Let’s leave the world of Real-World Economics Review, where George’s study appears, for the real world where the consequences of the new meaning of competitive are often very perverse. What does it mean to be competitive with everyone from everywhere for everything? When unfettered competition drives economic policy?

It means, as some Southern senators have proposed, cutting the wages of Detroit auto workers to the level of those who work for Japanese-owned non-union plants in the South. It means, too, something that pro-competitive advocates won’t discuss: gradually bringing the wages of all American workers, white- and blue-collar employees, in line with the wages of workers in China and other competitive countries in our bigger world.

But it also means far more than that. American workers cannot be truly competitive until they meet many more conditions of the bigger world, such as:

—cutting or eliminating company health care benefits, a process that has already begun.
—reducing government inspection of labor conditions, another process that is far along.
—trimming private pension plans, also well under way
—eliminating on-job discrimination programs against women and minorities

Those are just a few examples of the consequences of modern competitiveness, of how the “competitive” bandwagon imperils the whole range of human achievements gained (despite stiff resistance) in the United States.

No wonder globalization is in crisis. Competition has gone bezerk.

The sage of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, saw it coming. In a special section of the Economist 15 years ago, he predicted what globalization held in store for the United States. “America’s top 10% will enjoy the highest incomes in the world. But the wages of its less-educated citizens will drop to those of workers in the developing countries.”

That trend did not disturb Lee, a self-confessed social Darwinist. He and his government vigorously opposed any global regulation that would, for example, put limits on employing under-age boys and girls full time in factories.

Pope John Paul II extolled a different approach. In an address to more than 200,000 people on May Day eight years ago, he declared: “Globalization is a reality present today in every area of human life, but it is a reality which must be managed wisely. Solidarity too must become globalized.”

Which brand of globalization will the Obama administration follow? I wish I knew.


Print Page Read more!

Corruption in politics and in business

Reflecting on the stranger-than-fiction scandal in the Illinois governor’s office, Virginia’s political scientist/philosopher, Larry Sabato, published this comment on his Website two days ago:

A system of government or politics can be at least as corrupting as human nature itself. We have studied politicians in close proximity for years, and as much as it may disappoint the cynics, we have not found politicians to be venal as a class. While there are a number of individual exceptions, most professional politicians, especially those already in public office, want to do good or seek to do the right thing, if doing good is an option that does not result in their political demise.

However, if the "normal and customary" practices of campaigning engaged in both parties are seedy, and if a candidate believes "everybody's doing it, and if I don't do it, I may lose," then most politicians will suspend their ethical codes. They will willingly accept a distasteful means that ensures what they regard as the good and essential end of their continued power. In other words, otherwise ethical people are put at a disadvantage by a corrupting system and almost forced to do unto others as they are being done to.

Strict ethicists will correctly argue that the truly honorable person would not stoop to conquer, whatever the provocation. Yet reasonable reformers must keep in mind that the professional politician has a "power gene" in his or her genetic code that overrides all usual inhibitions to achieve victory or maintain power--and genetic engineering, however advanced it may become, will never be able to change that reality.

That analyis, first published in 1996 in Dirty Little Secrets, which Sabato co-authored with Glenn Simpson, is relevant today beyond the political scene.. Reread those paragraphs with business people replacing politicians. And change the kind of DNA involved: replace victory or maintain power with competitive drive.

After making those changes, you have a pretty good insight into today’s Wall Street scandals and how unregulated competition corrupted even many otherwise ethical people.

But the Sabato/Simpson closing sentence above is too pessimistic. Serious time behind bars can be a great deterrent, if seriously applied to enough guilty politicians and business people.


Print Page Read more!

The global durability of sweatshops – II

Life for garment workers in Bangladesh is a daily struggle for survival. A 2006 study by a British human rights group, War on Want, documented the “shameful” labor conditions at six factories producing clothes for three leading British retail chains. Now, a new War on Want study finds that nothing has changed in two years. Still the order of the day at those factories are extremely low wages, poor working conditions, arduous hours (up to 80 a week), and a “fierce” management opposition to unions.

“In fact,” says John Hilary, executive director of the War on Want, “given the damaging effects of the global food crisis, workers are now in an even worse position than they were before.”

Two of the retailers, Tesco and Asda, were founding members of the Ethical Trading Initiative, set up 10 years by companies, NGOs, and unions to improve labor conditions. The largest of the three, Primark, joined in 2006. In a press statement, Primark called the latest charges unsubstantiated and claimed that the practices of its suppliers are continually audited.

The new report, “Fashion Victims II,” criticizes the government and the retailers for relying on “the voluntary approach of ‘corporate social responsibility’” as the answer to sweatshops. Now War on Want insists that it is time “to stop companies from using sweatshop labor” by passing legislation regulating the operations of United Kingdom companies both in the UK and abroad.

War on Want’s Website supplies a sample letter to Members of Parliament urging them “to regulate UK companies and allow workers to seek justice in the UK.” In the United States, it is time to send the same letter, with Americanized changes, to members of both Houses of Congress and to the White House.

Print Page Read more!

The global durability of sweatshops

Even after 15 years of antisweatshop campaigns and corporate social responsibility programs, sweatshops are still alive and well throughout the global economy, both in developing and developed countries. So says Garrett Brown, a health and safety expert who speaks from the perspective of a California state OSHA inspector and a coordinator of worker rights projects in Mexico, Central America, Indonesia, and China since 1993.

Brown made that assessment last month in an address to a conference of industrial hygienists in Tampa, Florida. Although he focused on the state of on-the-job health and safety, he also presented an overview of how workers are faring in today’s global production and distribution system. Among the specifics he cited were these:

—Most factories in the global system have a constantly shifting work force. In China, for example, “good” factories have annual turnover rates of 35-40 percent; “bad” factories have turnover rates of 90 percent or more.

—China’s contract factories often have two worksites: a “trophy factory,” clean, well lit, and code compliant for the benefit of visiting clients and monitors, and the “shadow factory” nearby where production actually occurs under sweatshop conditions, outside the purview of monitors or government inspectors.

—Another way used to game the system, in China and elsewhere, is to maintain three different books on financial accounting and the wages and hours of worker: one for internal use only, one for the government, and one set for outside monitors of compliance with codes of conduct. Some large factories producing for (say) four international brands may provide four separate books, each customized for the code of conduct requirements of the specific clients.

Even “high road” employers, the minority with corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, have made only slight improvements in their treatment of workers, according to Brown. He blames their “schizophrenic” business model of trying to maximize implementation of codes of conduct while also exerting pressures to minimize production costs.

In his Tampa talk on November 10, Brown described this schizoid scenario as typical:

On Tuesday. a brand’s CSR staffers lecture the factory manager to obey all the country’s labor laws and regulations and to meet old and new requirements of the brand’s code of conduct, or else—. On Thursday, the brand’s buyers tell the manager to maintain the same product quality while requiring him to cut contract costs by x percent this year and by xx percent the next, or else—.

The main purpose of Brown’s presentation was to encourage occupational health professionals to be educators and advocates to improve health and safety in the global supply chains.

“Industrial hygienists,” he said, “can take the lead in this effort within our own companies, especially transnational corporations with global supply chains; within our professional associations; as citizens, constituents, and consumers; and as champions of a ‘big picture’ perspective and a pro-worker approach.”

The Website of the Maquiladora Health & Safety Network, which Brown coordinates, has the full text of his Tampa presentation at http://mhssn.igc.org/PCIH08_GBrown.pdf, as well as a wealth of other information on the global production system and the need to reform it.



Print Page Read more!

Exposing the High Costs of Trade

International trade is a Good Thing. Our opinion leaders say it is. The Washington Post says it is. So trade is clearly a win-win process, right?

No, sorry. It isn’t.

“The trade story is not win-win but rather good news-bad news,” Economist John Bivens explains in a new book, Everybody Wins, Except for Most of Us, subtitled “What Economics Teaches about Globalization.”

Trade, he writes, is “good news for national incomes, bad news for many if not most individuals and families.” Why? “Because trade “redistributes their income away from them and up the income ladder.”

That’s not a secret. It’s a truth “predicted by standard economic theory and proven by empirical studies,” Bivens points out. Economic integration across borders does make countries “a bit richer,” but its “more powerful effects [are] on the distribution of income within each economy.”

Cheerleaders for free trade, however, fail to make the basic distinction between trade’s effect on national income and on family income

Bivens not only clearly explains the theoretical distinction but also calculates its practical effect on American workers in dollar terms. He finds that for a full-time median-wage earner in 2006 the annual trade-related losses totaled about $1,400; for a typical household with two earners, the loss was $2,500. He goes on:

“These losses are as high or higher than other economic costs commonly presented as much more damaging to American families, such as the cost of health care, spikes in gasoline and fuel oil prices, the cost of a child’s four-year college education, or the funds needed to remedy a possible shortfall in the future of Social Security.”

Does the incoming Obama administration fully understand what is at stake?

That’s not yet clear.

Clearly, Obama and some of his key people do understand that globalization is a serious issue, but it is another matter whether they grasp the gravity of the real harm to ordinary American workers (as well as to workers in poor countries) – and how globalization impacts specific problems, like health care. Without such an deep understanding, it will be easy to be frozen into inaction by charges of “protectionism.”

A foreign trade union friend asked me the other day whether I had a “channel” to the Obama administration. I don’t. If I did, I’d try to get Obama or his chief economic advisor to read at least the executive summary of Everybody Wins Except for Most of Us, just published by the Economic Policy Institute.


Print Page Read more!

Big Business and the UN

That’s the title of an article of mine to be published in the December 1 issue of America, the Catholic weekly magazine published in New York. It describes a new United Nations initiative, headed by Harvard Professor John Ruggie, to make the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights more universal in the global economy.

A different and longer version of the article will appear in my forthcoming book, Justice at Work: Globalization and the Human Rights of Workers.

Another article of mine, titled Buyer’s Remorse, Spatulas and the Conscience of the Consumer, was published in the August 4 issue of America.

Print Page Read more!

Pro-Obama think tank on trade reform

The Obama administration is getting some strong advice from the Center for American Progress, a think tank headed by transition co-chair John D. Podesta. Among other things, the advice deals with creating “a new and different trade policy –- one that takes a strategic approach to making globalization more inclusive and sustainable.”

How to implement that approach is the subject of a Center report by Ira Shapiro, a former general counsel in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and Richard Samans, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Their newsiest recommendation:
-- Resist the temptation to lead a revival of the collapsed “Doha Round” of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
-- Do remain a “committed leader” of the multilateral trading system, while also making “new trade arrangements” within the WTO and outside of it.

Their most intriguing recommendation concerns “the special case of Asia” and how the United States could regain “its economic position” there. The report suggests that the Obama administration “reach out to the more advanced countries in Asia as potential partners in a vanguard, global club of advanced economies that agree to pursue deeper economic integration through both free trade and basic consistency of structural, regulatory, and exchange rate policies and institutions.”

“Basic consistency” would include comparable labor, environmental, consumer, and investor protections, the report emphasizes. It envisions that the pioneering members of this arrangement would be the United States, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, and that it might serve some nations’ self-interest to have “a counterweight to China’s increasing economic and political clout.”

Whether that particular idea flies or not, the report makes a reasonable case for a “more flexible approach” that regards fundamental policy consistencies as “a sounder organizing principle for [free trade agreements] than geographical proximity or bilateral ties.” The approach thus departs from a founding principle of the current trade regime: that all countries, whether democratic or dictatorial, are treated the same and get the same trade rights and privileges.

Here is what the report says about several of the current trade issues facing the new administration:

NAFTA: Because of global changes in the 15 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect, “it is perfectly appropriate” for Canada, Mexico, and the United States not only to evaluate the agreement but to explore other topics of mutual interest (e.g., better regulatory coordination on food safety).

Colombia FTA: Before this can be ratified, Colombia will have make “sufficient progress” in ending violence and in prosecuting those engaging in violence.

South Korea FTA: South Korea must address impediments to U.S. beef and auto exports

Presidential trade promotion authority: Without it (including some version of “fast track”), other nations won’t take U.S. negotiators seriously, but this executive power needs to be balanced by a strengthened role for Congress, even to the point of it helping choose countries for trade agreements.

The report, part of a book titled “Change for America: a Progressive Blueprint for the 44th president,” is aimed at the Office of United States Trade Representative (USTR) and what it should do about “responding to the changing global challenge.”

For the new President, the “blueprint” in the 17-page trade section is obviously subject to change because of competing priorities, not only within the ten-chapter book, but also because of the financial debacle that happened after the book was drafted.

Print Page Read more!

Remembering a Monstrous Evil

Yesterday was the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the night that Hitler launched a massive attack against Jews throughout the German Reich. We, about 100 of us from the Northern Virginia Hebrew Congregation and neighboring St. Thomas a Becket Catholic Church, met in the Jewish sanctuary last night to try to help make sure that Kristallnacht is not forgotten.

“Kristallnacht,” the Night of Broken Glass, is a feeble term for the unbelievable horrors that occurred all through the night of November 9, 1938, and the following day. In a massive outburst of Nazi-provoked violence and terror in Germany and Austria, Jews found themselves attacked by many of their own neighbors, their homes wrecked, their synagogues destroyed, while police stood by. It was the beginning of the Holocaust.

Two panelists--Nicole Rubloff, a member of the Hebrew congregation, and Father John Langan, S.J.. Georgetown University professor of philosophy and Catholic social thought--reviewed Kristallnacht and its causes and effects..

What they did not satisfactorily answer—at least not for me—is how this “monstrous evil” (Father Langan’s term) could have happened in Germany, one of the most advanced societies in the world. The panelists tried their best, of course, and so did some audience members, but they were really trying to explain the unexplainable.

For me, the discussion left unshaken my long held fear that what happened in Germany could happen anywhere, though not necessarily in the same form against the same victims. No country should feel so great, so smug, to think that it is completely safe from the possibility of a massive outburst of virulent hate.

That fear is based partly on what I know of myself. Had I been a German living in Germany at the time, would I have joined in the Kristallnacht horrors? I feel fairly certain I wouldn’t have. Would I have publicly expressed outrage? I feel less certain about that.

Would I have been among the millions who saluted and cheered Hitler at Nazi rallies? I hope not. More important, would I have dared to help organize people to oppose the Nazis and their madness? No, I’m afraid not.

It could be that I am too harsh on myself in my introspections, and that I am overgeneralizing. I hope so.

The event last night was the 26th annual “Interfaith Dialogue” sponsored by my parish and our neighboring Hebrew Congregation. Last night’s crowd of 100 was one of the largest of the five or six that I lave attended. As usual, almost every one there was above 40, most of us well above 40.

For information about Kristallnach, see the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Print Page Read more!

A 'tipping point' for fair-trade policy?

In the North Carolina elections for the House of Representatives November 4, Democrat Larry Kissell, a civics teacher who had worked in textile factories for 27 years, defeated a five-term Republican incumbent, Robin Hayes, who had cast one of the two last-minute votes that passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2001.

That other decisive pro-CAFTA vote had come from Phil English, a veteran Republic congressman from Erie, Pa. He too lost his seat this month to a Democrat, Kathy Dahlkemper.

For Todd Tucker, research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, those two victories are part “of an unprecedented shift in the U.S. political landscape away from the disastrous trade and globalization policies of the past.” For the division’s director, Lori Wallach, the 2008 election was “a veritable tipping point for fair trade issues.”

In the House of Representatives, 33 new “fair traders” won, for a net gain of 26, meaning that in January 2009 the new House will have about 140-150 “hardcore free traders” from both parties, according to Global Trade Watch’s count. In the Senate, five new fair-trade supporters were victorious, notably North Carolina state Senator Kay Hagan, who ousted GOP Senator Elizabeth Dole. The outcome of several other Senate and House races may increase those numbers.

The latest details are reported in a Global Trade Watch report, “Fair Trade Gets an Upgrade.”

Those numbers, impressive as they are, aren’t the only indicators of whether U.S. trade policy will become worker-friendly. A major clue will come from President Obama’s choice for U.S. Trade Representative, the senior official with a great deal of leeway in interpreting and enforcing U.S. trade policy.


Print Page Read more!

No more false choices. . . .

. . . is the title of a perceptive op-ed article in today’s New York Times by two of Senator Obama’s economic advisors. They debunk three widely held “false choices” facing the economy, and then propose alternatives to the either/or categorization. One important polarizing dichotomy they target is “free trade versus protectionism.”

The article’s special significance is that it is written by Robert E. Rubin, a former U.S. treasury secretary who is currently a Citigroup executive, and Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. The two express agreement on trade as follows:

“With respect to trade, the choice is not trade liberalization versus protectionism. Instead, as trade expands, we must recognize that protecting workers is not protectionism. We must better prepare our people to compete effectively and help those who are hurt by trade—not just displaced workers, but those who find their incomes lowered through global competition. This means investing more of the benefits of trade in offsetting these losses, through more effective safety nets, including universal health care and pension coverage.”

But the two economists then go on to disagree on a key issue:

“Beyond that, while we share a commitment to helping workers deal with our new global challenges, one of us (Mr. Bernstein) would advocate provisions in trade agreements that are intended to protect workers, both here and abroad, and the other [Mr. Rubin] would have considerable skepticism about the likely effectiveness of those provisions for our workers.”

In other words, since we are facing “new global challenges” in international trade, Bernstein advocates addressing them domestically and globally. Rubin, even while recognizing new global challenges, advocates addressing them only domestically, with better U.S. safety nets.

Two apparently different approaches. Can either work effectively?

The domestic approach, concentrating on U.S. measures alone, could work if U.S. legislation were globalized, truly globalized. That would mean adding a worker-friendly dimension to a wide set of U.S. laws. Tax laws, for example, would provide incentives for businesses to invest in the United States instead of abroad. Tariffs would be raised to cover more than the cost of building and maintaining our sea and airports, but also some of the cost of new safety nets. Corporate laws would be revised to make U.S.-based multinationals accountable for their treatment of workers in foreign countries, both those on their own payroll and those on the payrolls of contractors of the multinationals.

Rubin is right to be skeptical about labor provisions added to trade agreements, if he has in mind the provisions in existing agreements and the limited provisions adopted so far (as in the Peruvian free trade agreement). But Bernstein seems to favor a broader approach, one that would “protect workers, both here and abroad.”

To be serious about meeting the new global challenges facing workers here and abroad, it is pitifully inadequate to improve only the labor chapter of a trade agreement. The whole trade agreement, every single chapter of it, must be analyzed from a brand new perspective, one sharply different from the prevailing paradigm among negotiators.

At present, all trade agreements, including overall accords on the scope of trade agreements, are dominated by negotiators who have this objective uppermost in mind: How can we protect the rights and interests of business and business organizations in the global economy? The resulting document, whether bilateral, regional, plurilateral, or multilaternal in reach, is then judged by that one-sided standard.

That standard needs to be balanced by another: How can we also protect the rights and interests of workers and their organizations in the global economy? To its great shame, the World Trade Organization, like its predecessor bureaucracy, has steadfastly refused to put that question on its agenda. Worse, the WTO’s bosses, the political leaders of the world’s nations, are complicit in that shameful taboo.

Let me propose an addition to the list of economics false choices. The issue of what approach to take under the new global challenges is not global versus national. The most effective approach is to work at both.


Print Page Read more!