|
John Edwards came out against the Peru Free Trade Agreement, and
does it with good analysis. Leo Hindery of the Horizon Project is
his chief economic adviser and undoubtedly had something to do with
this statement.
****
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEOctober 27, 2007
CONTACT:
Colleen Murray
919-636-3203
EDWARDS STATEMENT ON PERU TRADE DEAL
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement on the Peru Trade Agreement:
“Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement
negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval
by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in
Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed
international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were
references to general principles and not specific standards. And
the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other
most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this
agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and
communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational
corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for
themselves and against American families. [read more].
“For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into
trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO in 1995,
promising in each case that they would create millions of new jobs and
trade surpluses. Instead, since these agreements were put into
place we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages decline,
and storied U.S. firms close – and towns all over this country have
been devastated. And we have run up larger and larger trade
deficits. This irresponsible squandering of our national wealth
now makes it increasingly difficult for us to control our own destiny.
“NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written
by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has
served them well. But it absolutely hasn’t served the interests
of regular workers in any of the three countries. When NAFTA was
passed, the American people were promised that by 2006 U.S. exports to
Mexico would exceed Mexican imports by $10 billion. But right
now, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs later, Mexican imports
are $70 billion more than U.S. exports to Mexico. And Mexican
workers have lost too – average wages for Mexican workers have declined
since NAFTA was passed.
“Right now, President Bush is pushing to expand this NAFTA approach to
four more countries. He has signed agreements with Peru, Panama, Korea
and even Colombia, where since 1991, in this tiny country, there have
been over 2100 documented cases of trade unionists being assassinated,
72 in 2006 alone.
“All of these agreements replicate these terrible features of NAFTA:
all of these agreements provide the expansive investor rights that
literally create incentives to relocate U.S. jobs overseas; all of
these agreements limit our ability to inspect imported food – even as
the International Trade Commission projects that these pacts will
result in a new flood of imported food; all of these agreements allow
foreign corporations operating here to attack our environmental, health
and even local zoning laws in foreign tribunals to demand our tax
dollars in compensation if following our laws undermines their expected
profits; and all of these agreements even limit how we can spend our
own tax dollars. These deals ban many Buy America and other similar
policies. Instead of your tax dollars going to support American
workers, these agreements take away one the few opportunities the
government has to directly create jobs here.
“But these four proposed agreements actually go even further than NAFTA.
“For instance, these deals give those foreign corporations who get
contracts to rebuild our nation’s bridges and highways or to operate
mines or cut timber on U.S. federal land special privileges superior to
the treatment of U.S. firms. U.S. firms have to meet our laws,
but in contrast, these agreements let foreign corporations operating
within the United States who have a gripe about their contract terms
drag the U.S. government into foreign tribunals stacked with their own
lawyers acting as ‘judges.’
“The damage threatened by these NAFTA expansion agreements extends
beyond the United States. Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru
FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand
compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security
privatization. That’s right, the Peru FTA could lock in the misery
facing millions of the elderly and ill in that extremely poor country
all to ensure U.S. firms can profit on what should be a government
service available to all in the first place.
“The Peru, Panama and Colombia agreements are also projected to
displace millions of peasant farmers. This would be a major human
tragedy. We saw how NAFTA’s similar agriculture rules destroyed the
livelihoods of 1.3 million peasant farmers with hunger increasing and
desperate migration to the United States jumping 60 percent since NAFTA.
“This is not just morally wrong, it is bad foreign policy. The United
States needs to rebuild its friendships in Latin America, not push
corporate trade agreements that undermine the livelihoods of the
region’s poorest residents.
“The presidents of Peru’s labor unions oppose this NAFTA expansion. So
does Peru’s Archbishop Pedro Barreto, who calls the NAFTA expansion
into Peru immoral – and a threat to the national security of his nation
and ours.
“For too long, Washington has been looking at every trade deal and
asking one, and only one, question – is it good for corporate
profits? And they haven’t looked at all at the harm it will do to
workers, their wages, or to the U.S. economy.
“What we need instead is trade based on what is good for America.
And we need to act on deeply held principles and not, as the Washington
Post said in a recent editorial, on “opportunism under pressure”.
“I believe we need to follow four principles to make sure that globalization works for everyone, starting right here at home.
“First, our multilateral and bilateral trade deals and unilateral trade
preferences must help America. They must benefit American workers
and their communities. This means they must: stick to trade and not
meddle with our domestic Buy America laws, our nation’s investment
policies, and our food safety and health laws; have at their core
strong protections for the global environment and basic labor
standards, such as prohibiting sweatshops and child labor and
protecting the right of workers to join unions; and include
prohibitions against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation and
other trade cheating of the sort that is in fact encouraged under most
of our current trade deals.
“Second, our trade policies must also lift up workers around the
world. Making sure that workers around the globe are treated
fairly and share in the gains of trade is the right thing to do
morally, it’s the right thing to do economically, and it will make us
here in America safer and more secure. We can never again condone
trade agreements with countries where there is violence against workers
or they are denied just wages and working conditions.
“Third, we must understand in negotiating trade agreements that “one
size does not fit all”. We need to be realistic about global
differences in form of government, in the rule of law, in the relative
state of countries’ economies, and in the day-to-day trade and business
practices of potential trading partners. How utterly foolish is
it that we treat China with its massive controlled and manipulated
economy, Mexico with its porous three thousand mile-long border with
the U.S., and developing countries in South America and Africa, as all
the same when it comes to trade?
“Fourth, our trade deals must be fairly and fully administered.
For free trade to be fair, it must be based on rules, and then those
rules must be followed. The top prosecutors at the Department of
Justice should be responsible for enforcing our trade agreements, and
when I am president I will insist that they prosecute all cases of
illegal foreign subsidies, currency manipulation, and unfair trade
practices.
“Some of the folks who still defend our failed status quo trade
policies want to avoid discussions about the vital changes that are
needed. Here’s a preview of what they will say about these common sense
suggestions: they will attack my smart trade vision for America as
being protectionist or anti-trade. They are dead wrong.
“I absolutely believe in fair free trade, and I always will, since fair
free trade creates jobs for Americans and fairness in the global
economy. I do not, however, believe in trade that only helps
multinational corporations and that hurts American workers and America.
“And so it is that looking ahead, as I am opposed to the Peru Trade
Agreement, I intend to also oppose the Colombia, Panama and South Korea
Trade Agreements in their present forms.”
 |
