How can trade and finance work for people?

“Making Trade and Finance Work for People and the Planet” is the subject of a public symposium to be held in Geneva June 22-24 by UNCTAD (the UN Conference on Trade and
Development).

Governmental and non-governmental leaders will discuss the subject from various aspects in two round tables and eight break-out sessions, with emphasis on interactive debate. Simultaneous translations will be provided in the six official UNCTAD languages.

The International Trade Union Confederation will lead a breakout session on the proposed financial transaction tax.

For more information contact UNCTAD at http://www.unctad.org/publicsymposium. Deadline for registration, which is mandatory, is June 10.

Print Page Read more!

Obama ‘weak, cautious’ on trade

In an article titled “Obama’s Big Failure,” Susan Ariel Aaronson, associate research professor of George Washington University, criticizes the President’s trade policy as “cautious and vague.”

“Because they have not put forward an alternative model,” she writes in International Economy magazine, “by default, Obama Administration officials have accepted the Bush paradigm for trade liberalization.”

Dr. Aaronson identifies the chief mark of this “timidity” as going along with the Bush switch of trade negotiations from the multilateral forum to the bilateral and regional, which pursue “preferential” rather than free trade agreements. This reorientation “undermines both the effectiveness of the World Trade Organization and its fundamental principle of most favored nation (nondiscrimination among nations).”

“The result has been a mish-mash of global trade governance,” she points out, as the various preferential agreements include differences in some key rules. She strongly recommends returning the focus of trade policy to the WTO.

To gain public support for such a move (and trade generally, I would add), Dr. Aaronson urges policymakers to publicize the links between trade and employment., with the UN International Labor Organization having a role in this assessment.

Dr. Aaronson latest book is “Trade Imbalance: the Struggle to Weigh Human Rights in Trade Policy Making.”

Print Page Read more!

Campaigning against Korea FTA

South Korea is emerging as the test of whether trade policy under President Obama will be much different from that established by previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

At issue is the Free Trade Agreement that President George Bush signed with South Korea three years ago. President Obama says he will send it to Congress for approval after negotiating changes with the Seoul government.

A coalition of unions, environmental, family farm, and other civil society organizations is circulating the text of a letter to Obama urging him to seize the opportunity to adopt “new trade rules that create American jobs.” Among the specific changes needed to gain support of a new FTA are removal of these existing objectionable features:
-- the explicit ban on reference to the core conventions of the UN International Labor Organization, which are “the fundamental platform of international labor rights.”
-- the “extreme foreign investor rights and their private investor-state enforcement that you rightly criticized during your campaign” for posing special threats to attack U.S. environmental, financial, health, and other policies in foreign tribunals.
-- the trade barriers harming numerous U.S. industries such as the auto and beef sectors, which undermine the goal of creating two million new American jobs through export expansion.

Instead of approving another trade pact patterned after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the letter encourages the President to correct the most problematic features of the Korean FTA by using this U.S. proposed law as a guide: the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment (TRADE) Act now pending in Congress.

For information about the Korea FTA check http://www.citizenstrade.org/ and http://wwww.aflcio.org.

More than 100 local, state, and national organizations have signed on to the letter expressing opposition to the 2007 deal. To add your organization’s name to the letter, contact agussert@citizenstrade.org.
Print Page Read more!

‘Doubling exports’ would be a big loser as a U.S. jobs policy

The Obama administration’s commitment to doubling U.S. exports in five years is woefully inadequate: it aims to create 2,000,000 American jobs when 22,000,000 are needed. That’s the criticism of by a former CEO, Leo Hindery, writing a guest editorial in the current issue of Manufacturing & Technology News.

A major problem with this export-reliant pledge, says Hindrey, is President Obama’s plan to ratify three free trade agreements negotiated by President Bush – with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. All “are very poorly negotiated and will cause even more American jobs to be lost overseas.”

He singles out the South Korea FTA as “simply awful,” so much so that, if approved without major changes, “the Obama administration will be giving a major unwarranted victory to America’s multinational corporations and Korean workers at the expense of America’s workers.”

Korean negotiators bested the United States in 2007 and later negotiations, according to Hindery, “especially in automobiles, where the FTA would lock in Hyundai Motor Corp.’s dominance of the South Korean market while locking out American manufactured vehicles, and in beef, where the U.S. would largely be excluded from exporting all but young carcasses.”

In Hindery’s view, President Obama must undertake a series of initiatives in addition to radically amending the three pending FTAs:

-- Decide that job creation is the number-one object of his administration’s economic policy, with domestic manufacturing as the top priority.

-- Line up his entire administration behind that policy. At present, some top officials voice positions that are “complete BS.”

-- Especially level the trade playing field between U.S. and China.

-- Emphasize the primary (not secondary) role of “big business” in creating the bulk of the millions of new jobs, and stop fixating on the ability of small business to do so.

Hindery is the former CEO of Tele-Communications Inc. (TCI) and chairs the U.S. Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative of the New America Foundation.
Print Page Read more!

AFL-CIO offers a “just” trade policy for the 21st century

“We cannot afford another trade agreement that privileges substandard new opportunity for investors over good jobs for workers,” the AFL-CIO says in testimony for the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

In the 34-page document the AFL-CIO presents its views on crucial elements of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement (TPPTA), and says it is looking forward “to working with the Obama Administration to create a just trade policy for the 21st century.”

U.S. negotiations are set to begin in mid-March with TPPTA, involving at least seven Asia-Pacific governments. The United States already has bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) with four of them: Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore.

A remarkable feature of the AFL-CIO position is that it deals with far more than strictly trade union issues, narrowly defined. For example, among “new issues for consideration,” it lists “valuation of currency” as an important trade union issue now ignored by existing agreements. “The U.S. cannot effectively export to countries that intervene systematically to keep their currency artificially low in relation to the dollar, as China, in particular, is doing.”

Only seven pages of the submission to USTR are devoted to improving the labor chapters of existing agreements. By contrast, the paper has 17 pages of non-labor chapters on issues that need to be improved. Among the most important are those that would fall in chapters on:

Investment. This seven-page section emphasizes that foreign investors in the U.S. can now “claim rights above and beyond those that our domestic investors enjoy,” and that this broad definition of investment should be narrowed to cover “only the kinds of property now protected by the U.S. constitution,” thereby excluding claims for losses from expected profits not met, for example.

Another examples of a recommended change in the investment template: a hostgovernment will be permitted to ensure that investment activity is conducted in a way sensitive to environmental and labor rights.

Procurement. A government will have the right “to require a supplier to comply with generally applicable laws regarding fundamental principles and rights at work.”

Intellectual property. “Our FTAs have provided excessive protection for the producers of brand-name pharmaceuticals,” thereby jeopardizing access to affordable medicines, particularly to developing countries.

Consumer protection. Both our domestic and trade policies must be crafted to prevent dangerous consumer and industrial goods from reaching our shores. Safety inspectors should get enhanced rights to inspect the facilities of a country exporting toxic products.

(The full text of the AFL-CIO submission is available at
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=USTR-2009-0041
Scroll down to USTR2009-0041-0100.)

Print Page Read more!

A new model for trade agreements is U.S. aim, starting in trans-Pacific

The Obama administration is starting to move U.S. trade policy in a new direction – very new, or so it appears from the words of the top U.S. trade official, Ron Kirk.

President Obama will start the ball rolling soon. He intends to enter into negotiations for an Asia-Pacific trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Kirk announced in a press statement and in letters to Congressional leaders December 14.

The goal is “a new kind of trade agreement for the 21st century, bringing home the jobs and economic opportunity we want all our trade deals to deliver,” Ambassador Kirk said in his press announcement.

He emphasized that USTR would intensify the already-begun consultation with congress to develop negotiating objectives seeking “the highest economic benefit for America’s workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers” and reflecting “our shared values on labor, the environment, and other key issues.”

In separate letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Kirk reiterated the theme that successful conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations requires “a high-standard, 21st century agreement,” one that “updates the U.S. approach to traditional trade issues. “

Among the issues he cited that need updating were:

-- “environmental protection and conservation, transparency, workers rights and protection, and development.”
-- “new opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses to increase exports to the region.”
-- U.S. firms’ participation in “production and supply chains in order to encourage investment and production in the United States.”

In concluding his two-page letter to the Congressional leaders, Kirk wrote:

“The TPP Agreement provides an opportunity to develop a new model for U.S. trade negotiations and a new regional approach that focuses more on jobs, enhances U.S. competitiveness, and ensures that the benefits of our trade agreements are shared by all Americans.”

U.S. negotiating partners under TPP so far include only seven countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Others countries are expected to join soon. China is the wild card.

Initial negotiations are already scheduled to begin in March. Negotiations – oops, consultations -- with Congress and within Congress on priorities are already underway.

USTR is seeking public input on the “direction, focus, and content” of the TPP negotiations. A new webpage, http://www.ustr.gov/tpp is already operational with information for the public.

Print Page Read more!

In Geneva and in Washington the call is for Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

In his speech on the morning of the last day of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva, U.S. Ambassador Ron Kirk only hinted at all that he had in mind. At a working session on the WTO’s contribution to development, Kirk, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), spoke of what “remains the linchpin to our efforts” to bring the stalled Doha negotiation round to a successful conclusion.

That, he said, “will require market-opening initiatives from all key players – not only developed but also advanced developing countries, commensurate with their role in the global economy.”

In a statement that afternoon, December 2, he reaffirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to a Doha agreement favorable to the poorest countries, but also emphasized another economic necessity:

“In the United States, we recognize that trade can be an important pillar of global economic recovery and of recovery right at home – particularly in terms of creating the well-paid jobs that Americans want and need.”

Then in subsequent talks with reporters Ambassador Kirk was more specific.

“We are turning out attention almost full time to how we can create jobs and continue to grow the economy,” he told the Associated Press. “Too many Americans believed…that our previous trade policies had been overly generous to our partners.”

So far what is offered on the negotiating table, he told the Wall Street Journal, doesn’t give the United States “meaningful market access in the part of the world that will be growing and driving GDP growth over the next few years,” referring to countries like China, India, and Brazil.

The Business Standard of India quoted Kirk along the same lines: “The United States has been clear that we will need to achieve meaningful opening of markets that results in significant new trade flows – China, India, and Brazil, and South Africa.”

Meanwhile, Washington was preparing for a White House “Jobs Summit” on December 3 with the participation of business, labor, academia, and non-profit groups on how to put Americans back to work.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing called for “aggressive action to spur manufacturing job creation.” On the AFL-CIO blog, the call was for Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, issued a statement on December 2 calling for replacing the Doha Round agenda with a WTO “turnaround plan.” “Ten years after the world’s most powerful governments and corporations failed to launch a massive WTO expansion at the 1999 WTO Ministerial,” she said, “there is still no WTO expansion. BUT, there also is still no WTO turnaround, and the current rules are causing major damage on many fronts.”

Print Page Read more!

A new path for globalization as envisioned by Japan’s new Prime Minister

“In the post-Cold War period, Japan has been continually buffeted by the winds of market fundamentalism in a U.S.-led movement that is more usually called globalization. In the fundamentalist pursuit of capitalism, people are treated not as an end but as a means. Consequently, human dignity is lost.”

That was the opening paragraph of a New York Times op-ed article written by Yukio Hatoyama, leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, published under the title “A New Path for Japan” on August 27.

Three days later Hatoyama’s Democratic Party won a landslide electoral victory that will make him Japan’s prime minister on September 16.

Hatoyama’s campaign centered on a return to “the idea of fraternity.” In the Times article he described fraternity in terms that led the blog of Public Citizens' Global Trade Watch to headline his victory as one in which “Fair traders Sweep Japanese Elections.”

Globalization “has progressed without any regard for non-economic values, or for environmental issues or problems of resource restriction,” Hatoyama wrote, and added:

“Under the principle of fraternity, we would not implement policies that leave areas relating to human lives and safety – such as agriculture, the environment, and medicine – to the mercy of globalism.

“Our responsibility as politicians is to refocus our attention on those non-economic values that have been thrown aside by the march of globalism. We must work on policies that regenerate the ties that bring people together, that take greater account of nature and the environment, that rebuild welfare and medical systems, that provide better education and child-rearing support, and that address wealth disparities.”

The Times op-ed was an edited excerpt from a much longer article in the September issue of the monthly Japanese journal article Voice. The on-line Wall Street Journal ran Hatoyama’s complete article on September 3 under the title “My Political Philosophy.”

The full article has a conclusion not included in the Times excerpt:

“We are currently standing at a turning point in global history, and therefore our resolve and vision are being tested, not only in terms of how we try to formulate policies to stimulate the domestic economy, but also in terms of how we try to build a new global and political order.”

Print Page Read more!

Double standard on labor standards

You are an employer under pressure from corporate stockholders to increase the returns on their investment. You decide the way to do so is to slash your present and future labor costs by firing your current workers en masse and recruiting a set of new ones, people among the unemployed so anxious for a job that they accept anything you impose: sub-minimum pay, no vacations, a seven-day workweek, no sick pay, and other drastically lower labor standards associated with a sweatshop.

As an American employer, you would not be able to implement so radical a decision. It would be illegal. It would be bad public relations. It would also, in the eyes of most people, be immoral. You couldn’t get away with it.

But what if instead of hiring other workers in America, you hire workers overseas – foreign men, women, and children willing to work in the real sweatshops of the kind that dot the Asian industrial landscape.

In both cases you impose harm on Americans, and you undermine the progressive U.S. labor market practices built up over decades. Oddly, however, you would be judged harshly in one case and not the other. That’s because we draw a sharp line between the two radical moves, even though the effect in the United States is exactly the same.

Why does an illegitimate and unacceptable radical change in one case become legitimate and acceptable in the other? Simply because one radical change is consummated across borders under the protection of international trade laws that are deemed superior and not be interfered with.

The above paragraphs reformulate a crucial policy inconsistency conveyed by Dani Rodrik, professor of international political economy, in his June 16 talk at the London School of Economics. In outlining the possible future of capitalism (see my June 21 posting) he briefly discussed labor standards as an important globalization issue that needs to be much better understood.

“And yet,” he added, “we have no good way of even talking about this.”

Why is the labor standards issue so little talked about in Washington power circles these days?

Mostly, I think, because the agenda-setting power circle has made up its collective mind on this issue. The unspoken assumption is that today’s trade rules, despite some flaws, are sufficiently legitimate and really have nothing to do with the grave harm imposed on American workers.

Rodrik’s 90-minute talk, as recorded on video, is a good short overview of why the flaws are threats to globalization itself. His video presentation on “Capitalism.3.0” can be found on the London School’s Website. The quickest way to access it is through Rodrik’s June 18 posting on his Weblog at http://rodrik.typepad.com/

Print Page Read more!

Envisioning a Reborn Capitalism

The present global economic crisis has shaken capitalism down to its roots. What will, or should, replace it? Dani Rodrik, professor of political economy at Harvard’s school of government, dealt with that question on June 16 in a public lecture at the London School of Economics.

Rodrik warned against making two opposite mistakes in reacting to the crisis: returning to the protectionism of the 1930s (unlikely, unless the U.S. succumbs to even deeper recession) or making “an ambitious effort to take economic globalization to the next level.”

But neither approach would address what Rodrik rightly considers the fundamental problem of the world economy: “the imbalance between the reach of markets (global) and the scope of their governance (mostly national).”

For a Moderate, Moderated Globalization

The scenario that Rodrik advocates is “an intermediate level of globalization.” Its key element: allowing countries to retain much greater domestic “policy space” when domestic requirements conflict with the requirements of international integration. (In other words, a serious need of a country’s own citizenry should trump WTO rules.)

Rodrik’s intermediate level of globalization would not be “a retreat from globalization per se” but a retreat from the gung-ho globalization of the post-1990 years. Unfettered financial globalization and free capital mobility would lose their power as driving forces under his vision of Capitalism 3.0, the assigned title of his London talk.

A major reality that Rodrik recognizes is that “democratic governance and political communities are organized within nation states, and are likely to remain so in the immediate future.” So it is still up to nation-states to act in concert toward Capitalism 3.0 under "guidelines" such as the following:

There is no “one way” of globalization: institutional designs that underpin market economies will differ according to domestic preferences and needs.

Non-democratic countries may be subject to more restrictive global trade/investment rules “since it cannot be presumed that their choices reflect the needs of their citizenry.”

“Like-minded” nations would be able to “deep integrate” (pursue a high degree of free trade and other mutual economic arrangements).

Where deep integration is not feasible or desirable, the countries would rely on “traffic rules” to manage the interface among the various national institutional arrangements.

It is in his “traffic rules” that Rodrik offers some details on putting the “guidelines,” or general principles, into specific rules. What might such traffic rules look like? In the Power Point presentation of his talk, he offers two sets of traffic rules – “illustrations,” not blueprints.

-- Regarding WTO trade rules, for example, he proposes a special “development box” for developing countries to exempt them from some currently prohibited practices that don’t fit their situation.

-- Among the traffic rules for finance, he proposes recognition of the right of governments to interfere in cross-border financial flows that undermine a country’s own regulations.

A video of Rodrik's presentation can be accessed through the June 18 posting on his Weblog at http://rodrik.typepad.com.

Rodrik’s latest book is "One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth." His writings appear regularly in the world press through an international press service called Project Syndicate.

The Vatican is expected to release a new document (called an encyclical) by Pope Benedict XVI late in June. Once scheduled to be released in September last year, the encyclical’s publication was delayed to take into account the economic crisis. Judging by previews given orally and in writings by the Pope, its analysis of globalization will be remarkably similar to Rodrik’s.

Print Page Read more!

Balance investor rights with responsibilities

It’s time to replace a foreign trade/investment model that has not worked, as Thea Mai Lee, AFL-CIO policy director, has repeatedly emphasized in Congressional testimony and talks at conferences dealing with the current economic crisis.

In Congressional testimony on May 14, she singled out a critical but often ignored element that belongs in a new trade/investment model: a “balanced” treatment of foreign investment.

“While we understand and support the importance of protecting the rights of investors,” she said, “we believe that existing investment provisions in U.S. investment and trade agreements are imbalanced in two crucial aspects:

“First, they significantly enhance the rights of investors vis-à-vis governments, but they fail to establish commensurate responsibilities for investors, particularly with respect to workers’ rights and the environment.

“Second, they give substantive rights and procedural advantages to foreign investors that are not available to domestic investors. This raises the possibility that investment tribunals can be used to circumvent the democratic process and to achieve regulatory outcomes in a secretive and inaccessible forum. Certainly the experience with the investment chapter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and current BITs [bilateral investment treaties] reinforces these concerns.”

As now written, she said, the pro-investor language “facilitates and accelerates the offshoring of American jobs – precisely because for the most part there has been no commensurate set of investor obligations.”

Lee is co-chairing a subcommittee of the State Department’s advisory committee on international economic policy to review and critique the draft model BIT.

The United States has 40 BITs in force and 10 Free Trade Agreements with provisions protecting investment, plus a separate multilateral agreement under the World Trade Organization for the same purpose.

Print Page Read more!

Coming: a new U.S. ‘framework’ for trade

President Obama will soon be outlining a new “framework” for international trade. Ambassador Ron Kirk, the President’s trade representative, confirmed that on June 2 in remarks to the U.S.-China Business Council in Washington.

Recognizing that trade “has the potential to lift up workers in America and around the world,” Obama holds that future trade agreements need to have strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards, Kirk said.

Hanging over U.S.-China relations is the fact that China alone accounts for about half of the U.S. trade deficit with the whole world. In the first quarter of this year, the United States imported $64,810,000,000 in goods from China, while exporting only $14,426,000,000.

Ambassador Kirk did not cite these figures, but spoke of “the extraordinary opportunities for job creation here in the United States if we shrink our trade imbalance with China, and if China further opens its market to U.S. goods and services.”

Complicating those two if’s is that about a quarter of the U.S. imports from China is in “intra-firm” trade, that is, cross-border transactions between different branches of the same firm.

Print Page Read more!

Myopia Still Hampers WTO

It is up to the United States “to make history” by leading the way to a revival of the stalled Doha Round of trade negotiations, says Pascal Lamy, director-general of the World Trade Organization.

In making that case in a Washington talk on April 24, Lamy emphasized that open trade needs to be “accompanied by the right domestic policies.” His list of those policies includes:

-- “better worker training, greater mobility in labor markets, more expansive social safety nets."
-- “investing in critical areas such as health care, education, and clean energy.”
-- “greater investment in physical, social, and government infrastructure, which helps increase the benefits of trade.”

“The presence of these domestic policies,” he explained, “provides a layer of comfort to workers who are then better prepared to face global competition since they know there are social safety nets that will catch them when they fall.”

In warning against protectionist measures, Lamy said: “It is not less trade that the United States needs, but more and better domestic policies,…policies which help translate trade into benefits for the people. This is where the task of reconciling the people with trade must start [emphasis added].”

While detailing the domestic policies that need to be changed for the sake of workers, he neglected to mention any WTO policies that might need change to take account the rights and interests of workers. These are controversial of course, but so are the domestic policies he advocates.

Ironically, at least in the United States, the business groups most eager to restart the Doha negotiations are also those most zealous in opposing the domestic policies that Lamy deems necessary to give “comfort” to working men and women.

In his talk, given at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Lamy called upon U.S. business, academics, and political leaders to rally behind the WTO during what he called “the first global crisis in the history of mankind.” Yet, except for his ideas on needed domestic programs, he relied on the same free trade rationale that has been persuasive for 60 years but now is seriously questioned by influential economists and others in rich and poor countries alike.

Back in 1993, a Heritage Foundation memorandum analyzing the pre-WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) called it “the closest thing to a uniform commercial code for world trade.” The WTO is still devoted to devising and enforcing an improved global code for commerce, but the world needs more than that.

Lamy’s talk reflects some innovative WTO ideas on the internal policies of the United States and other countries. Especially in the present crisis, Pascal would be wise to start rethinking the WTO’s own policies.
* * *

I have long criticized the WTO for its unbalanced agenda. See, for example, “The WTO's Lop-Sided Agenda for the World,” in December 2001. For a more recent analysis, see the blog posting of April 20, immediately below this.

Print Page Read more!

President Obama’s basic choice on trade

As the Obama administration wrestles with shaping its policy on the World Trade Organization (WTO), the old questions about fairness and equal treatment pop up once again.

Fairness? (I can hear the loud objections.) Why sidetrack the WTO into controversies about fairness and equal treatment?

It may come as a surprise to some that the WTO is already committed to equal treatment. That commitment is so basic that it is expressed in two principles that the WTO calls “the foundation of the multilateral trading system.”

These two principles, both formulating “trade without discrimination,” are:

“1. Most-favored-nation (MFN): treating other people equally….Grant someone a special favor (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products), and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.”

“2. National treatment: treating foreigners and locals equally. Imported and locally produced goods should be treated equally….The same should apply to foreign and domestic services, and to foreign and domestic trademarks, copyrights, and patents.”

Those two principles, here quoted from an official document, “Understanding the WTO,"are written into all three key WTO agreements, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the General Agreement Trade in Services (GATS), and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Why does equality of treatment have such a fundamental role in the WTO as in the trading system as a whole?

Because it is fair to those whose rights and interests it is designed to protect – the business people and firms engaged in international commerce. The laws of individual countries were not – and are not -- adequate to offer that protection. After World War II, policymakers of leading nations agreed to correct that particular gap, and created the first versions of GATT the agreement and GATT the organization, both focused on business.

Even at the beginning, some leaders recognized that the focus on business was one-sided and needed to be corrected to include the rights and interests of workers and their organizations. Those efforts failed then, and have failed ever since.

The challenging trade issues now facing the Obama administration can be reduced to three statements:

1. The world trade and investment system does not protect the rights and interests of workers and worker organizations as it does the rights and interests of business and business firms.

2. That imbalance is unfair, and is increasingly recognized as unacceptable -- a trend that partly accounts for the widespread disenchantment with globalization.

3. The challenge is to decide what actions, short range to long range, are necessary to correct that imbalance.

Adopting a WTO agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Labor Standards (TRAILS) would be a historic achievement, but not a cure-all. Biased ideas toward work, workers, and worker organizations are imbeded in our culture. Curing them requires a multi-faceted approach.
* * *

This crisis should not go to waste

“Anonymous” makes the following comment about my previous post (below), titled “Oust U.S. financial oligarchy: economist”

“I'm so not listening to economists these days, Bob. Let's hear from people who are breaking out new mobilization ideas - the grass-roots cannot be rallied with what this-or-that economist says. Get the agit-prop, resistance-inspiring and activists' victories stories out there, before this moment passes!”

My view: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Including those among economists.


Print Page Read more!

Holes In President's Trade Agenda

After reading the government’s new report, “The President’s Trade Agenda: Making Trade Work for American Families,” I asked myself: will President Obama be willing to go all-out to pass the Employee Free Choice Act? My hunch was that he won't be.

I may turn out to be wrong (I hope I am) , but the thrust of his trade policy statement suggests otherwise. Yes, it may seem strange to link domestic labor legislation to foreign trade issues, but there are many connections. Let me describe a few of them.

My overall impression of this agenda, prepared when most of Obama’s trade people were not yet on board, is that it is weak on worker rights. It makes no mention of the key worker right, the right to unionize. If the report truly reflects the President’s position, it seems to follow that President Obama will also be weak on restoring the American worker’s right to unionize.

The agenda is very strong on continuing U.S. support for a “rules-based system of global trade,” with the World Trade Organization institutionally at the top.. But it says nothing about a huge hole in the WTO’s rules. Those rules are now one-sided. They protect the rights of business people and their organizations in thousands of pages, but contain not one single page protecting the rights of labor and its organizations.

The agenda praises Congress for making progress in upgrading adjustment assistance to workers made jobless by globalization. But trade adjustment assistance, a favorite prescription of Larry Summers, is a palliative and no substitute for reorienting trade to make the international labor market less of a jungle that it now is for many millions of working men, women, and children.

The agenda promises to “build on the successful examples of labor provisions in some of our existing [bilateral, non-WTO] agreements.” But it leaves the successes unnamed. Under sunlight, not one of the labor provisions in existing agreements qualifies as amodel to emulated.

The agenda is eloquent in expressing the benefits of foreign trade, but says nothing about how it is built on a huge global production system where sweatshops flourish. Nor is there any recognition of the shameful role that American multinationals like Nike and Wal-Mart play in that system.

Apart from what this report says and doesn’t state, however, the crucial test for the Obama administration is in whether it will sign a pending free trade agreement with Colombia, the world’s deadliest place for unionists. For this holdover from Bush negotiators, the administration plans to “establish benchmarks for progress” that would clean it up it for Obama’s signature.

Benchmarks? What kind of benchmarks? A reduction of the union assassination rate to 50 or 60 percent?

Compromises are normal in foreign trade policy. The pressures from trade enthusiasts and business lobbyists are incredibly powerful. But at some point there comes a decision on an issue so noxious that you must have the guts to say NO. The Colombia FTA is that point.

In domestic policy, too, compromises are normal. Organized business, grown fat under the viciously anti-union policies of the Bush administration, is waging the campaign of campaigns to bury the Employee Free Choice Act, with mounds of cash to gain gravediggers in the Senate

President Obama will have to invest a large amount of his own political capital to persuade the Senate to restore freedom of association to American workers. Will he? Hoping won’t make it so.


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!

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!

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!

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!

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!