I’m taking a brief break here from the goings-on at the AFL-CIO to raise the specter of the looming Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). For some time, I’ve referred to CAFTA-like deals as so-called “free trade” deals because they have little to do with the theory of free trade and a whole lot more to do with guaranteeing rights for capital and investment. This deal is likely to come before Congress this summer and covers the U.S., Dominican Republic and five Central American countries.

What caught my eye and is worth mentioning today is an an article in the March 7th edition of Business Week. Entitled “States’ Rights vs. Free Trade,” the piece asserts that:

After decades of dozing on the sidelines as Washington promoted a free-trade agenda around the globe, governors, state lawmakers, and judges are waking up to the same startling reality: A growing number of international trade agreements are usurping state powers. Suddenly, alarmed that Washington is bargaining away their authority over everything from regulating utilities to controlling land use, states are all but ready to join the chorus of anti-globalization critics.

This is nothing new, though it’s significant that a prominent organ of business is flagging the issue. Going back to the passage of NAFTA in 1993, critics of so-called free trade agreements have underscored the danger that these deals would eviscerate state and federal laws. Most recently, I wrote about this issue, citing a 2001 report by Public Citizen.

But, throughout the past decade, so-called free trade advocates and their supporters in the media (particularly, editorial boards) have dismissed the concerns raised about the ability of trade laws to trump the rights of elected legislators. Critics were branded as “protectionists” afraid to embrace the wonderful future of so-called “free trade.” Well, the future has arrived and, from the states’ rights perspective (yes, a chilling concept of its own for those who remember pre-Voting Rights Act days), it ain’t pretty.