I was just reading that the DLC says the Peru trade deal is great and has almost no opposition. More on that in a minute.
Now this study by Columbia:
REPORT: Peru Deal's Labor Provisions "Worse Than Existing Law"In a stunning new report on the eve of the congressional vote on the Peru Free Trade Agreement, a Columbia University legal expert shows the pact may weaken the United States' ability to enforce basic labor standards in trade agreements. The report by Columbia Law professor Mark Barenberg finds that the much-touted labor protections in the Peru deal are "even worse than existing law" and "in no respect do the Agreement’s labor provisions mark a significant improvement."
The Columbia University report compares labor provisions in already-passed trade deals with the proposed provisions in the Peru deal, which congressional Democrats and the White House have sold to the public and rank-and-file lawmakers as a new and improved model. But the Columbia report shows how the Peru deal's model actually undermines existing trade laws, which he notes are already "weak, unreliable, and inadequate to the task."
The report itself is a Word document.
Columbia Law professor Mark Barenbaum finds that the much-touted labor protections in the Peru deal are "even worse than existing law"Global Trade Watch has been highly critical, and they have pages of letters from people and groups who oppose it.
Peru, Panama & Colombia: NAFTA Expansion to the Rainforest and BeyondUnfortunately, this May 2007 brought shockingly bad news. A handful of Democrats in the House of Representatives struck a "deal" with President Bush on the Peru and Panama FTAs that could pave the way also to the passage of the Colombia FTA and even to more Fast Track trade negotiating authority for President Bush. The deal makes needed improvements to the labor and environmental provisions, but unfortunately leaves in almost all the bad NAFTA-style provisions that fair trade groups demanded be taken out. Thus, the deal only puts a new roof on a condemned building.
And for the other side of the issue:
Here is the DLC's discussion of the Peru trade deal, and it is singing its praises.
Idea of the Week: A Free Trade Agreement With PeruNext week, the U.S. House is expected to vote on a Free Trade Agreement with Peru. Originally signed in 2006, it has been rewritten and in many ways improved since Democrats took control of Congress. And in fact, this is the first real trade policy step by a Democratic Congress in over a decade. It has already won broad support from Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee, and deserves progressive support generally.
.."On the merits, there is almost no opposition to the agreement; notably, the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers have had positive things to say about its substantive details. Such opposition as exists is almost entirely symbolic, with some trade hardliners urging a "no" vote simply to signal generalized economic anxiety, or unhappiness with trade policy matters that have nothing to do with Peru.
From the original link above, this conclusion.
The report's findings likely explain why no major labor, human rights, environmental, religious, anti-poverty or consumer protection groups have endorsed the Peru Free Trade Agreement, while most of Washington's corporate lobbying sector has. It also explains why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has assured its members that "the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance."
One of those opinions is not like the other opinions. They are strangely diverse. It seems one group lives in another world than the majority of us live in.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
