After the tremendous success NAFTA, and other free trade policies which were pursued during both the Clinton and Bush eras, have had in destroying good middle class jobs in America, increasing the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, helping to fuel increased immigration from Mexico (since it destroyed jobs there as well), and increasing the risk of unsafe consumer products being introduced into the US, one would think that the Democrats who control the House and Senate would be a little less enthusiastic for such “free trade” agreements (but not “fair trade” agreements) so beloved by multinational corporations and Republicans.
One might think that, but only if one were delusional. As this report on the Senate vote for a new trade agreement with Peru sadly demonstrates, many Democrats in Congress have been only too happy to advance the Bush administration’s free trade agenda:
(cont.)
The Senate gave decisive backing yesterday to a U.S.-Peru free-trade agreement, opening the way for expanded economic ties with the Andean nation and giving the administration a boost in its quest to shore up relations with Latin America. […]
President Bush said after the vote that he looked forward to signing the bill that would “level the playing field for American exporters and investors” and would signal “our firm support for those who share our values of freedom and democracy.”
At an earlier news conference, Bush also urged Congress to act on another pending trade deal — with Colombia — saying that was a way to “make a difference in South America in terms of Venezuelan influence.” […]
Opponents also looked to the bigger picture, blaming past trade pacts, particularly with China and Mexico, for rising trade deficits and the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs. “One of the major reasons that the middle class in the United States is shrinking, poverty is increasing and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider is in fact due to our disastrous, unfettered, trade policy,” Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) said.
Yes, the Peru free trade agreement calls for more environmental and labor protection in Peru, but I am skeptical that any US administration will follow through in enforcing those rules. These are the same two political parties, after all, that granted most favored nation status to China despite its record of human right abuses, environmental degradation and lack of protections for labor and occupational safety. Put me firmly in the camp of “anything that Bush is for I am against.” I believe that Senator Bernie Sanders is right when he says that our current aggregation of free trade agreements and policies have been detrimental to the economic prosperity of most Americans, and have been one of the leading factors in the increase in income inequality between the rich and everyone else in America.
Besides, why should we trust the Bush administration (or any future Democratic administration led by a DLC approved President such as Senator Clinton) to enforce the rather nebulous commitments to “fundamental labor rights … and fulfilling obligations under multilateral environmental agreements.” I certainly see no reason to trust President Bush, the man who threatened to veto legislation to assist workers whose jobs have been sacrificed to the god of globalization. And I certainly don’t trust any candidate now running for President whose past record shows a propensity for supporting multinational companies in their quest for ever expanding free trade zones.
In this respect, John Edwards is correct when he says our political process is fundamentally flawed because it has been corrupted by the influence of corporate interests. Until we fix that system which relies on copious quantities of money from corporations and wealthy donors to obtain and retain a seat in Congress, or finance a run for President, we will continue to see the rights of ordinary Americans gutted, consumer safety ignored, the environment fouled and the wealthy increase their share of the economic pie at the expense of everyone else.
