Sequels Suck

During the NAFTA fight, pro-NAFTA forces were able to peel off just enough environmentalists and pro-labor members with a series of 'side agreements' that pledged to uphold labor and environmental standards.  The key point to remember in the 'deal' announced last week is that the 'deal' was more of a promise to rewrite the trade agreements between Peru and Panama.  Apparently, though, what may actually be going on is that free trade forces aren't going to rewrite the deals so much as they will add side agreements for environmental and labor standards.

To put this in context, for people who remember the NAFTA fight, this is like the Bush administration putting to Congress a resolution for the authorization of the use of military force in Iran and promising to do everything possible to avoid a military strike, including inspections for nuclear facilities.  So it shouldn't be a surprise that the Senators cut out of the process are livid.

Five Senators with strong ties to labor unions expressed outrage today about the side deals negotiated between Congressional leaders and the White House to include labor and environmental standards in a new trade policy proposal, and said that they want to be invited to the table.

Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said at a press conference today that they want to push for new benchmarks in future trade agreements to measure their success and allow Congress to review any agreement in any five-year period.

"We would say to all of those who played a role in these negotiations that we intend to be a part of the negotiations and will be with respect to what we described: benchmarks and accountability," Dorgan said.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and U.S. Trade Ambassador Susan Schwab reached an accord with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) to include environmental and worker protections in new trade deals with South Korea, Colombia, Panama and Peru.

However, Brown said in a statement that "if the plan is to offer side deals, then nothing new is on the table except a $5.00 Rolex."

I don't like sequels in general.  And this is surely a sequel: a slowing economy, a President named Bush, a decimated labor force, a neoliberal group in Congress, strong business coalitions, a Clinton running for the Democratic nomination promising to be on the side of the people while surrounding the campaign with corporate-allied operatives, a country looking for change, and a secretive trade deal on the table.

Sequels are always worse than the original.  This one is no different.



Display:


Re: Sequels Suck (none / 0)

I do not know enough about the current trade bill to have a full opinion- CAFTA bothered me; trade deals need to include enforceable environmental and labor provisions. More to the point, they need to look after the American people's welfare. I wish you stopped demonizing NAFTA. I supported the pact despite some reservations on the theory that what is good for Mexico is good for us.  In other words, issues that are usually important in trade negotiations took second place to the well-being of our neighbor, as well as it should have been. As far as I can see, though far from perfect, the deal did turn out well for both countries.  My congresswoman at the time, the wonderful Leslie Byrne -D- Fairfax, voted against the bill because she was to wedded to labor (and this was one issue where labor would give her a pass!)- I am sure her vote was one of the top reasons she lost her re-election campaign against Tom Davis. The county like most of the US has a fair number of Hispanics which she chose not to represent.  


by RAULC on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:59:24 PM EST

Re: Sequels Suck (none / 0)

As far as I can see, though far from perfect, the deal did turn out well for both countries.

So massive poverty in Mexico is a good thing in your book.  Weird.  Not that we can lay that all at the feet of NAFTA, but some of it can be.


by Matt Stoller on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sequels Suck (none / 0)

Massive poverty was there before NAFTA- of course you know that, and I suspect you don't really know how much NAFTA has helped Mexico. On a serious blog like this I expect more than knee-jerk platitudes. An honest counter-argument would have been whether having a trade pact with Mexico should have been held to a different standard like I argued. Oh, and to be sure, yes, Mexico is very poor, but having access to US markets had a mostly benefitial effect in the northern part of the country.  


by RAULC on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:42:44 PM EST

Re: Sequels Suck (none / 0)

After NAFTA went into effect, by 2003 the number of people living in intense poverty in Mexico increased from 17 million, to 27 million.  I think intense poverty is something like 80% of the poverty level, but I don't recall.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sequels Suck (none / 0)

You are not to be taken seriously. All of the metrics tell us that Mexico is poorer today than it was before NAFTA. The number of persons living in poverty in Mexico has increased by 10 mil. since NAFTA went into effect. Economic growth is slower today, than it was before NAFTA. More people are coming over the border today, then were before NAFTA. Corn tortillas, a staple of the Mexican diet, costs 50% more, adjusted for inflation, then they did before NAFTA. According to the Carnegie Endowment, wages in the border region of Mexico have declined 25% since the passage of NAFTA. The Mexican corn industry was devastated in less then a year after NAFTA came into effect when American-subsidized corn flooded the market. Mexico is producing more wealth than ever, and the Mexican worker is deriving none of the benefits. By what measure has NAFTA worked?

The only knee-jerk anything in the trade debate is the knee-jerk recitation of long since discredited talking points about the beneficience of free trade, and the sanctity of its theoretical underpinnings, which now appear to be only the latest in a distinguished line of intellectual frauds perpetrated by a discipline, economics, that fancies itself a science, but is in reality, a religion of the crudest sort.  


by Robert Drake on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks Matt (none / 0)

My sentiments exactly. And probably those of a lot of people, on the web and out in the country.

Thanks for giving those frustrations a voice.


by Zach in Phoenix on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:10:15 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.