|
17 November 2010 By Stephen
Lendman Agreements like NAFTA, DR-CAFTA,
and various bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs)
have proved hugely destructive, superseding national
laws, sovereignty, labor rights, environmental
concerns, and more. "There's no free collective
bargaining for workers," says Ralph Nader. "There's no
rule of law (either, just) bribery, (worker
exploitation and plunder). These companies (can)
pollute at will. There's no judicial independence to
make (them) accountable," to stop them from "abus(ing)
workers and consumers and communities, as" they all do
repeatedly. In other words, "free trade" is a
license to steal, plunder, exploit, pollute, and
overall operate unrestrained, the sole consideration
being maximum profits, no matter how gotten. As a result, level playing fields
don't exist. Jobs are exported and destroyed.
Corporate giants alone win, trade managed solely for
their benefit. An Economic Policy Institute (EPI)
study showed NAFTA-related imports cost America
879,280 jobs in its first decade, besides downward
pressure on wages and benefits. Saying FTAs will
create them is deceptive hooey, a big lie based on
historical experience, instructive for Korean and
American workers as Washington pressures Seoul for a
deal, a KORUS-FTA. If agreed, EPI estimates that
imports will displace around 888,000 existing or
potential US jobs by 2015, causing a net 322,000 loss,
the differential over export produced ones. Obama said
he wanted a Bush negotiated KORUS voted on by Congress
by early 2011 the latest after unspecified
modifications were made. However, the current text
replicates NAFTA and DR-CAFTA, contradicting his
promise to use trade as a vehicle to create jobs,
assure worker rights, protect ecological
sustainability, and ensure financial stability. As in America, worker rights
violations, for example, are widespread in Korea.
Authorities use their "obstruction of business" law to
imprison labor leaders and employers, often using
police repressively against union activity. America is
more subtle for similar results, organized labor here
a shadow of its former self. The 2007 KORUS text also
prohibits restriction sizes of financial institutions
or limitations on services they can provide. Moreover,
there's no control over risk, speculative derivatives
trading, or destabilizing capital flight. Yet both
countries have since implemented new stability and
regulatory measures, conflicting with the original
agreement. Some of Korea's, however, were loosened,
not tightened, and America's financial reform is more
business as usual than change. In addition, the KORUS text lets
foreign corporations privately enforce investor
rights. As a result, they can directly challenge US
laws in offshore courts seeking compensation for lost
profits. Both countries have established businesses in
the other. They'll thus get taxpayer subsidized
payments for complying with environmental, public
health, labor, financial, and other laws and
regulations that violate KORUS provisions in its
current form. As now drafted, it also lets both
nations ignore the International Labor Organization's
(ILO) core conventions, nullifying its worker rights
provisions. Overall, its limitations are as
destructive as NAFTA, making its disturbing parts
essential to renegotiate. According to Lori Wallach,
director of Public Citizen's Trade Watch division: The Trans-Pacific Partnership
"provides an opportunity to start from scratch in
considering how to deliver the new American trade
agreement model, as Obama (the candidate) promised." Over 150 congressional members
co-sponsored HR 3012 - the Trade Reform,
Accountability, Development and Employment Act (The
TRADE Act) - for trade agreements to deliver for the
majority in areas of labor, human rights,
environmental and public safety, food and product
health and safety, various services, investment,
procurement, intellectual property, agriculture, trade
remedies and safeguards, dispute resolution and
enforcement, technical assistance, national security,
and taxation. Now's the time to deliver as
promised and set a standard for all agreements to
follow. On September 17, Wallach explained that US
export growth to non-FTA countries have been more than
double our treaty partners. "That stunning finding should put
an end to recent Obama administration talk about
reviving three NAFTA-style FTA's leftover from the
Bush era. And it should provide impetus to finally
implement President Obama's campaign commitments to
renogtiate aspects of the past FTAs, and create a new"
US model going forward. Besides increasing exports, job
creation is the core justification for all trade
deals. Yet Public Citizen's study "Lies, Damn Lies and
Export Statistics" analyzes actual trade data. "It
showed that, if exports to the 17 US FTA partners had
only grown as much as exports to the rest of the
world, (we'd) have had an extra $72 billion in exports
over the past decade." Point of fact: Contrary to NAFTA
proponents, America's trade deficit with FTA partners
increased, US producers losing out. Moreover,
America's manufacturing base eroded, and its trade
deficit ballooned. Yet, "corporate lobbyists unveiled
a series of misleading and erroneous studies and
talking points, alleging all sorts of" NAFTA-style
benefits. "It is impossible to know whether these are
deliberate attempts to distort the truth, or simply
sloppy economics." Smart money says the former. Disturbingly, current FTAs
extract export penalties, harming manufacturing and
service exports, besides destroying jobs at a time
creating them should be priority one. In his 2010
State of the Union address, Obama called export
expansion a national priority, its goal to create two
million jobs by doubling exports by 2015. The data,
however, belie the bravado, as distorted as bogus
lobbyist, US Chamber of Commerce, and National
Association of Manufacturers (NAM) claims. For example, since NAFTA-style
FTAs in 1994, America lost 4.9 million manufacturing
jobs and 43,000 US plants closed. Since 2000, the
proportion of US jobs in the manufacturing sector
declined by 30% - from 15.5% to 10.9%, a key factor
being flawed trade deals. "Economic simulations have found
that the US economy could have supported an estimated
5 million more jobs if not for the massive trade
deficit that has accrued under current trade
policy....Economists of all stripes agree that the
status quo trade policy has contributed significantly
to rising inequality," costing the average American
family a net $2,000 a year from lost wages. The EPI,
in fact, projects that if current trade policy
continues, all wage gains since 1979 for non-college
degreed workers may be erased. Clearly, a new
direction is needed, one opposite of KORUS and other
FTAs. On November 11, New York Times writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg headlined, "Stalled South Korea Trade Deal Is Setback for Obama," saying: He hasn't so far delivered for business, "emerg(ing) empty-handed" from the Seoul G-20 conference. If agreed, it would be "one of the biggest such pacts since" NAFTA, "analysts say(ing) it is an important underpinning for other deals the administration is seeking, including a regional agreement with Asia-Pacific nations." Unsurprisingly, Stolberg's tone supports a deal she should condemn. Instead she touts its export growth and job creation potential, calling it a US Chamber of Commerce priority, and saying America is falling behind China negotiating its own Asian deals, "a source of concern to the Obama administration, which is trying to promote alliances in the region to tamp down China's influence." A November 7 New York Times editorial headlined "South Korea Is a Start," saying: Obama must press to get bilateral FTAs passed, calling KORUS "essential to cementing relations with a strategic partner" and a boost to global trade. World economic growth, says the Times, "needs an open trading system," never mind the destructive effects of all deals so far. Earlier editorials were just as clueless. For example, a February 2, 2007 one headlined, "A Bipartisan Trade Policy" called it "very good to the United States, (an unidentified source saying deals added) an additional $1 trillion in income for Americans annually, and millions of new jobs" since WW II. False, as Public Citizen's Lori Wallach explained above. No matter, The Times editorial concluded saying "putting the brakes on (FTA-created) global growth is still the surest path to losing American jobs." No wonder Jonathan Tasini, the Labor Research Association's Executive Director headlined a February 2, 2007 op-ed: "The New York Times Shills for Corporate Trade," saying: The same day Times editorial provides a window into "the thinking of the elites who want to continue the current disastrous system of trade....Trade deals have been structured for the benefit of corporations." The message to workers: "tough luck." (G)lobal growth (is) the surest path to Americans losing jobs - and for that matter, forcing people around the world to work for low wages." Times editorialists know it but don't care. They're committed solely to wealth and power interests, what's pretty much true throughout the dominant media, where seldom is heard a discouraging word about policies they should denounce, destructive trade deals among them.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
|
Add Comments