We still need to read the fine print regarding the trade deal that was struck yesterday between the Administration and House Democrats (or, to be more precise, Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangel). But, I’m always struck by the way in which liberals and even a few progressives (note: there is a difference) still don’t get the underlying problem about trade. I want to try to explain, calmly, why this deal is not in the best interests of workers and why the initial noise misses the bigger point.

    There are two frames to look at this agreement. Let’s start with the easy one: If you look at the narrow frame of the deal–that is, is it good that there will be labor and environmental provisions in so-called “free trade” agreements–you can say, “sure, there is some progress.” It means *something* to have written into this agreement the International Labor Organization’s standards on child labor, prohibiting forced labor and the right to organize–even though no one on our side (meaning, the forces opposed to so-called “free trade”) has actually seen the language. I’m told by a person who was very close to the negotiations that Rangel killed a couple of drafts of the deal when Susan Schwab, the head of the United States Trade Representative’s office and the National Manufacturer’s Association tried to get through much weaker language on labor rights. If that is true, Rangel should be praised on that score.

    The first problem is that the Administration and business groups are overselling the scope of the deal, claiming that the deal covers all pending so-called “free trade” deals (Peru, Panama, Columbia and south Korean) and the renewal of “fast track.” Sen. Max Baucus is also running around trying to give the same impression (not a surprise, really, because Baucus has been one of the worst Democratic enablers of so-called “free trade”). And they were helped by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rangel who were really anxious to show that they could deliver some sort of trade agreement and bum-rushed this announcement.

    But, my labor friends tell me that they made it very clear that the agreement only covered the pending so-called “free trade” deals with Peru and Panama.  If the deal covers more than those two agreements, then, that is big trouble.

    Why? Pending so-called “free trade”agreements with South Korean and Columbia are much more problematic. Rangel and the rest of the Democrats who want to trumpet this “compromise” have to be kidding themselves if they think they can get Columbia to respect labor rights. The Columbian government itself can’t police labor rights–and, actually, as I pointed out recently, have been persuasively shown to be aiding and abetting the violent forces in Columbia that murder union activists. And the deal with South Korea will bleed the U.S. auto industry even further–you can bet that deal is dead on arrival.

    Charlie Rangel did a disservice by playing a lot of this back and forth very close to the vest. He kept many key Democrats out of the loop–only four freshman Democrats out of 33 were ever part of the conversation. He kept most of the labor movement and important groups like Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch outside the deliberations, even as the business community had regular input via the Administration.

    The bigger frame, though, is far more important. The lost opportunity is very clear: Rangel and Pelosi signed off on a deal that leaves some of the most toxic elements of so-called “free trade” in place: 

• The so-called “free trade” agreements will still ban anti-offshoring policies.
• The so-called “free trade” agreements will still include NAFTA Chapter 11-style foreign investor rights. These rights encourage U.S. companies to move offshore, as well as open up basic U.S. environmental, health, zoning and other laws to attack (they allow a company to argue that a pro-labor or pro-consumer law constitute an unfair trade barrier and, therefore, needs to be eliminated).
• The threat to prevailing wage laws, recycled content and renewable energy policy remain. 
• The agriculture rules that will foreseeably result in the displacement of millions of peasant farmers increasing hunger,social unrest, desperate migration and per Peruvian and Colombian government reports increased drug cultivation, trade and violence remain. 
• The food safety limits that require us to import meat not meeting our safety standards remain

    A couple of months ago, I pointed out that Rangel was going down the wrong road. If the labor rights protections end up as side letters, or even incorporated in the body, they will be meaningless–unenforceable and quickly forgotten. That’s how the Clinton Administration dealt with labor and environmental rights in NAFTA–a complete disaster for our workers and Mexican workers (the latter have seen their standard of living plummet–at least the vast sea of migrant and factory workers). And it should speak volumes that REPUBLICANS were open to the idea of including language on labor rights.

    The central problem to so-called “free trade” agreements is that they start out from the wrong premise: that trade agreements should be primarily about protecting investment and capital and, then, only as an afterthought, do the agreements wrestle with how workers and the environment should be treated.

   

    That’s why deals that do not create a different kind of framework are not going to do much in the way of changing the lives of workers.