Um.. Y'All Might Wanna Take A Look At This... 'Trade and the Enforcement Issue'

[WillyT]

Trade and the Enforcement Issue
Mike Lux - HuffPo
Posted: 05/18/2015 12:26 pm EDT Updated: 1 hour ago

<snip>

The trade debate is a thoroughly engrossing saga full of intriguing story lines, as both parties find themselves in civil wars as the strange bedfellows of Obama, McConnell, and Boehner, and the combined might of corporate America, try to ram home a deal that, with such an alliance, should be easy to ram. But the fight goes on, and the story lines keep getting more interesting: Will the tea party faction in the House finally trust Obama with the kind of unlimited power on trade he is asking for? Will Hillary take a stand? Will Obama keep taking pot shots at Elizabeth Warren? Will Pelosi rally the Democratic troops in the House to be against Obama the same way Warren and Harry Reid have in the Senate?

I have worked and written a lot on the TPP fight over the last couple of years, and it is going to be intense all the way through, but I wanted to throw another thing into the whole trade discussion today, and that is the issue of enforcement: Why are we to have any faith in the language of these trade deals on labor, the environment, or anything else if the administration won't enforce the rules of trade that already exist? We have seen examples of the lack of enforcement time and time again over the years on deals relating to China and many other countries. One of the big issues that roiled the Senate vote earlier this week was currency manipulation, and Chinese currency manipulation is the classic enforcement issue most on people's minds, but it is far from the only one. Elizabeth Warren just issued an incredibly important new report on the lack of enforcement on arguably the most important single issue, labor standards.

One of the most egregious examples of the lack of enforcement of trade rules is the lack of enforcement around the massive subsidies that Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are giving to their countries' state-owned airlines. Under the rules of the WTO, this kind of state subsidy is exactly the kind of thing that is not supposed to happen. Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways, and Emirates Airlines have (according to research done by the admittedly biased U.S. airline industry, although having looked at their white paper myself, I feel that the subsidies they list are quite well-documented) between them received over $42 billion in different kinds of subsidies over the past decade -- subsidies that include various sorts of grants, no-interest loans with no repayment schedule, free land, and free airport fees. But the most outrageous subsidy of all, and the most telling to future trade agreements, is that Qatar and UAE have a ban on all labor unions. Yes, that's right, a complete ban on unions, and yet the United States is not enforcing trade sanctions against them.

The TPP may or not have the most progressive language ever when it comes to labor standards; we won't know until the administration declassifies the document and lets us non-corporate execs take a look at it. But even if the language is the best ever, that wouldn't amount to a hill of beans given that the administration doesn't seem to want to enforce the trade standards that are currently in writing in the WTO.

That's not the half of it. Qatar and UAE are some of the worst human-rights-abusing countries in the world in general. Qatar has been condemned by John Kerry for human trafficking and slavery; UAE has had massive issues with denial of the freedom of expression; both countries have laws on their books allowing blatant discrimination against women and the LGBT community; and most outrageous of all, UAE actually regards homosexual activity as punishable by death. And the three airlines these countries own all follow the kinds of discriminatory practices that their countries practice.

UAE and Qatar want to be our country's modern trading partners, given the same rights and status as first-world countries, but on trafficking, women's rights, LGBT rights, freedom of expression, and labor rights, they want to be in the 14th century...

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/trade-and-the-enforcement-issue_b_7306060.html

[WillyT]

1. Kick !!!

[cantbeserious]

2. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Get What They Want - The 99% Get Not So Much

eom

[Thespian2]

3. K & R !!!

When you feel a kind of weightlessness, you will know that the TPP has passed and took away the country's sovereignty...the federal government gave away your human rights... thus you no longer have to carry that excess weight...

[GitRDun]

4. This is the best argument I have heard so far against the TPP

No point in having the words on the page if, for political reasons, our government will not try to enforce them.

That being the case, the TPP would work against us as we take down walls for foreign goods while global corporations flock to the lowest rent countries to supply there goods.

Obama needs to answer this question.

[WillyT]

16. Yep... What Good Are Rules, When You Don't Enforce Them...

Could say that about a lot of things lately... 4th Amendment... Wall Street... Torture...

[shaayecanaan]

5. i find it difficult to take this seriously

Even if the sums are correct , the Arab expenditures on airline subsidies are still a fraction of what the us spends on agricultural subsidies, and they are supported to the hilt by politicians across the divide, including Bernie sanders, no doubt compelled by the Vermont farmers that have come to expect them.

[Martin Eden]

6. This trade deal will be enforced ...

... when corporations file suit against regulations that hinder their profits.

[daleanime]

7. K&R.....

[Scuba]

8. Where are the defenders?

[WillyT]

10. Good Question...

[pampango]

9. You make a good case that enforcement should be outside the sole control of politicians.

If a labor union or environmental group could bring a case against a country such as Qatar, we would not have to wait for politicians to do their usual balancing act with politics, foreign policy, national security, etc. before taking any enforcement action.

Of course, when you involve groups outside of national governments involved in the enforcement process, the issue of national sovereignty arises. Should an American or European labor union be able to challenge labor practices in Qatar, for example, if an international agreement allowed it to do so? (Should a European union be allowed to challenge our 'right-to-work' laws since they weaken our unions and lower our wages, thus hurting European unions?) Should we wait until American or European politicians decide that the balance of issues merits a government-backed challenge? Or should we just leave workers in Qatar to the tender mercies of their government since it is a sovereign nation?

The first option seemed to be what FDR and Truman envisioned for the ITO which would have relied on arbitration to resolve disputes, including those with regard to labor rights, business regulation, investor protection, full employment, etc. Having witnessed the level of corporate control over government that existed under republicans for the 12 years before FDR was elected (and that we see today), they realized that relying solely on government to challenge labor practices (and by extension environmental practices in our time) in other countries, was a recipe for inaction.

[raouldukelives]

11. K&R Some resist, some assist. nt

[Oilwellian]

12. You would think Hillary would be all over this stink

Qatar and UAE are some of the worst human-rights-abusing countries in the world in general. Qatar has been condemned by John Kerry for human trafficking and slavery; UAE has had massive issues with denial of the freedom of expression; both countries have laws on their books allowing blatant discrimination against women and the LGBT community; and most outrageous of all, UAE actually regards homosexual activity as punishable by death. And the three airlines these countries own all follow the kinds of discriminatory practices that their countries practice.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. You'd think somone would, but no one does. Straights love the anti gay countries.

In fact, on TPP a vast amount of the organized resistance is coming from LGBT groups both in the labor movement and independently, with lots of focus on the favor status being given to Brunei which has the death penalty for being gay. DU does not speak of this because the DU folks who speak against TPP are often the same folks who preach the narrative 'LGBT rights don't matter, it's just social issues' so it is hard for them to acknowledge the work we do. So they don't. Instead they peach and carry on.
Malaysia is also part of TPP and they have major human rights problems as well.

Here is a link from June
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Pride-at-Works-head-discusses-Brunei-womens-groups/48310.html

And another:

More than 100 U.S. lawmakers and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights groups on Thursday urged the Obama administration to stop trade talks with Brunei unless the country revokes Islamic criminal laws they say jeopardize human rights.

Brunei, the first East Asian country to introduce Islamic criminal law, has announced laws that will impose fines or jail terms for offenses such as pregnancy outside marriage and failure to perform Friday prayers. The laws will ultimately punish sodomy and adultery with the death penalty, including by stoning.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/12/us-usa-trade-brunei-idUSKBN0EN2DR20140612


If you look at DU in June, the folks claiming to be leading on this issue were not even talking about it.

[KoKo]

14. Kick and Recommend!

[moondust]

15. K/R

[WillyT]

17. Evening Kick...

[GoneFishin]

18. Kick.

[WillyT]

19. Kick2