Yesterday, I wrote that neither Sens. Clinton nor Obama are reliable on the issues of trade. Today, there is a bit more evidence to support that notion. It would be helpful if partisans of both camps stop pointing fingers so that we can have a clear-headed debate about trade.
In today’s New York Times, there is a piece entitled, "Despite Nafta Attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven’t Been Free Trade Foes". That is an accurate summary of the positions of the two candidates.
"The bottom line," said Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch division of Public Citizen and a fierce free trade foe, "is neither of the current Democratic candidates were in the category of leaders fighting for improving U.S. trade policy to try to come up with different terms for globalization, but in the course of their campaign they have come to see both the political necessity and the substantive problems, pushing them to some interesting new thinking."
And…
In the minds of hard-core opponents of free trade, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have checkered records in the Senate on trade agreements. Both voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement but supported a trade pact with Peru last year, citing the inclusion of labor and environmental provisions that were not part of Nafta.
Opponents, however, said crucial provisions in Nafta that led to jobs being shipped overseas were also part of the Peru agreement. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were also among only a dozen Senate Democrats who voted for a trade agreement with Oman in 2006.
"They’re hedging their bets," said Representative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat whose district in the northern part of the state has been decimated by job losses. "They’re trying to have it both ways, and you can’t."
I added the BOLD to Kaptur’s quote. Kaptur has been one of the most outspoken opponents of so-called "free trade" and should carry a lot of weight in this debate.
As I said yesterday, partisans of both candidates are trying to gain a political advantage on an issue where neither candidate can be seen as particularly progressive on the topic. I do not believe the partisans of either camp are doing the Democratic Party–or, more important, the country–any good by ignoring the larger, fundamental issues around so-called "free trade."
This has been a fundamental reason why I have remain quite unmoved by rhetorical calls for "change." "Change" is not going to come if we tweak a so-called "free trade" agreement around the edges. Both candidates are talking about renegotiating NAFTA, using the club that the U.S. will opt out of NAFTA if enforcement is not toughened up on labor and environmental standards. "Change" will not come because of great rhetorical calls for "tougher enforcement" because enforcement is not the problem. And if that is the two candidates’ positions, we are headed for more grief and severe economic stress for working people.
The fundamental problem of so-called "free trade" is the very framework that puts corporate rights and power over community and democratic rights. Neither candidate is willing to say: we have to abandon so-called "free trade" and start our thinking from scratch. The real danger, as John Edwards pointed out, are the Chapter 11 provisions in so-called "free trade" agreements like NAFTA that give huge, broad rights to corporations irrespective of the side agreements on labor and the environment.
Chapter 11 rights allow this kind of scenario: Let’s say a company doing business in a country that is a party to one of these so-called "free trade" agreements believes a law violates rights or protections the company has under the trade deal. The company can take its case before a trade tribunal, which can, then, rule that a law–say an environmental law or labor law–is illegal under the so-called "free trade" regime and award tax-payer dollars to corporations. And this tribunal operates behind closed doors, with no public input or scrutiny and none of the basic due process or transparency one would expect in open courts.
These Chapter 11 rights are one of the most odious provisions of so-called "free trade" deals. They allow companies to undercut our democracy–obliterating laws that are passed by the people we elect can be overridden by an unaccountable, unelected tribunal.
Until candidate start addressing the fundamental framework of so-called "free trade", working people have very little to look forward to in a "changed, bi-partisan" world.
