David Sirota has this news from MSNBC and his own comment on it:
“Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter’s protests to the contrary. He also affirmed his support for free trade.”
The voter’s “protests to the contrary” are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the Peruvian agreement, and the labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to enforce them…. [emphasis mine]
Sirota points out that Obama’s stand isn’t surprising considering that the senator was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project, a group of economists headed by Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury. The Hamilton Project pushes the same free trade policies that obtained during Clinton’s presidency, and it aims to lure Democratic legislators to the dark side of the trade question.
Democrats who connive against the interests of the working class are perhaps more dangerous than Republicans. At least Republicans are more out front about their alliance with corporations.
The republican way:
In 2003 and 2004 I spent a whole lot of money, a whole lot of effort, and a whole lot of time supporting Howard Dean’s candidacy. The thing is, I didn’t agree with him about everything.
In 2007 I again find that I don’t agree about everything with the individuals who are in the field of Democratic Party presidential candidates. And they are minor differences in the scheme of things. I’m pragmatic – 23 out of 24 slices is much better than no loaf at all. There is no question of it for me – whoever is the Democratic Party nominee gets my vote, my effort, and (if I have any left over) my money. The consequences of four more years of republican incompetence and meanness are just too much.
If you scroll past the comments by Kucinich, Edwards and Hillary supports (and probably a few old fashioned racists) there is a comment that clarifies the Obama psoition. Here it is:
I had emailed David’s article to Obama’s campaign worker that I know and this is the response I received:
This is not accurate.
NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement
Peru = South America
David Sirota is wrong.
The trade agreement with Peru, a South American country, is not an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
It has nothing to do with NAFTA or CAFTA, which Senator Obama does not support. It was independently negotiated and unlike those agreements, the Peru agreement includes enforceable labor and environmental protections.
The Peru Trade Agreement has Enforceable Labor Protections
The Peru agreement – unlike NAFTA and CAFTA, — includes the five basic internationally recognized labor standards set forth in the International Labor Organization’s 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
These rights – along with each country’s obligation to enforce its labor laws – are to be fully enforceable under the dispute settlement provisions of the Peru Trade Agreements, just as all other provisions.
Thea Mei Lee, the AFL-CIO economist testifying before Congress said that the Peru trade agreement was “an enormous improvement” over past Bush agreements with Chile, Singapore, Morocco and others. She said that AFL-CIO unions were on both sides on the Peru agreement, and it was putting its priorities into opposing two other pending free trade agreements, with Colombia and South Korea.
House Democratic Leadership, including Speaker Pelosi and Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, support the agreement.
The Peru Trade Agreement will Have Minimal Impact on American Jobs
Despite the pace of growth in both U.S. exports to, and imports from Peru, the economic impact of the agreement will be small – Peru accounts for only about one-third of one percent of total U.S. imports.
98% of Peruvian exports to the United States already enter the U.S. duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA).
The Peru Trade Agreement has Additional Benefits
98% of Peruvian exports to the United States already enter the U.S. duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). The Peru Agreement will help American firms by immediately providing duty-free treatment to 80% of non-agricultural U.S. exports and about two-thirds of agricultural exports to Peru.
The agreement buttresses US economic links to a growing Latin American economy and may help build US political and economic ties to the region.
Barack Obama Will Only Support Trade Agreements that Help American Workers
As president, Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs and will oppose trade agreements that help corporate special interests at the expense of American workers.
Obama will stand firm against those agreements that fail to strengthen opportunities for American workers and lack meaningful labor and environmental protections. That’s why he voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to their domestic industries. The Bush Administration has been asleep at the wheel on this issue. It has failed to fight clear violations of international trade agreements, including China’s ongoing currency manipulation.
Obama will make strategic investments to assist workers who have been left behind by globalization. He’ll update and expand trade adjustment assistance to reflect the realities of globalization and will work to help entire communities rebuild after a major employer shuts down.
Barack Obama will Work to Fix NAFTA, Not expand it to Other Countries
Barack Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA on behalf of American workers. Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. It has not created the jobs and wealth that were promised. Obama believes that we can, and must, make trade work for American workers by opening up foreign markets to U.S. goods and he will ensure that NAFTA lives up to that important principle.
Corporations retain the right to sue directly on behalf of “investor rights,” while individuals and environmental and labor groups must depend on a government to make an official complaint.
I bow to the detailed answer. My apologies to Obama.
At least since the onslaught of NAFTA consequences, unbridled “trade deals” have been breaking the backs of American workers and draining their resources. Time for a complete moratorium on any and all new trade deals no matter how sweetly presented. First all previous “deals” should be cancelled, from NAFTA and CAFTA to the present. No new deals until BushyBoy and his cronies are out of office and beyond reach of free trade negotiations. Also no DLCers should be allowed anywhere near any trade negotiations. Bill Clinton brought us way enough grief to last for a long while. I can only imagine that Hillary plans to forge ahead in the world of free trade. I have a thought: why don’t we Americans just trade with each other for awhile? then maybe I could buy something made in the U.S. and maybe more of my neighbors would have jobs. I don’t see globalization as inevitable…only if everyone says so and thinks so.
Sirota is catching hell over trivial details like the date on one of his links, which is pure spin for Obama supporters to avoid Obama’s caving to the Republicans in return for meaningless, never to be enforced provisions in a few areas of the agreement. Just like folks here think they have refuted Sirota by noting that Peru is in South America rather than North, so it can’t be ‘N’afta, even if the differences in the bills are still trivial.
The Republicans absolutely LOVE those provisions that Obama thinks permit him to support the bill:
Yeah, you read that right. Obama’s favorite provisions are useless. Wonderful sounding. Great sound bites. But useless in the context of the limitations built in to the provisions.
I believe the technical term for this is “reacharound”.
Meanwhile, Change to Win has a pretty good summary:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ChangetoWinPeruSenateLetter.pdf
And even the Peruvian unions hate it. See:
“The problems with worker rights in Peru can’t be fixed with only Supreme Decrees from President Alan Garcia,” said Julio Cesar Bazan, president of Confederacio Unitaria de Trabajadores, a Peruvian labor federation with strong ties to the AFL-CIO, through a translator on a conference call today. Such decrees, he said, do not have the force of law but rather make regulatory changes…
Personally, I prefer substance over style. Hard to find this year…
Unfortunately, he’s wrong on this.
Is Hillary Clinton a “Corporate Democrat?” – Part 1
Is Hillary Clinton a “Corporate Democrat?” – Part 2
Is Hillary Clinton a “Corporate Democrat?” – Part 3