The Kerry Amendment To NAFTA

[DrFunkenstein]

(Nader-founded) Public Citizen:

"The amendment was a modest reform that guaranteed much-needed changes in the NAFTA Chapter 11 investment model in future trade agreements.

Under the model, foreign investors may file a claim in secret NAFTA tribunals to seek compensation when government public interest regulations in any way diminish the value of their investment.

In doing so, the amendment would have instructed U.S. trade negotiators to ensure that future investor provisions do not grant foreign investors rights beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides."

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congress=1072

The Kerry Amendment to the Baucus-Grassley fast-track trade bill would have limited expansion of NAFTA-style corporate lawsuits to more countries.

Under NAFTA, foreign corporations gained broad powers to sue US taxpayers for financial damages if our environmental, health, or land protection laws interfere with their businesses.

The Kerry Amendment would have ensured that foreign investors have no greater rights than US citizens under the US Constitution.

http://www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/2002/kerry.asp

WASHINGTON - May 21 - Friends of the Earth expressed disappointment in the loss of an amendment to trade legislation that would have protected environmental standards from foreign investor lawsuits. The amendment, offered by Sen. John Kerry, sought to address concerns with investment rules like NAFTA's Chapter 11 that allow foreign corporations to bring suits against environmental laws and regulations.

"By voting against the Kerry amendment, the Senate has paved the way for more backdoor corporate assaults on laws that protect our air, water and land," said David Waskow, Friends of the Earth's trade policy coordinator. "The Senate should be protecting the health and safety of Americans, not watching the backs of wealthy polluters who make big campaign contributions."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0521-13.htm

"The current Fast Track bill is an environmental nightmare," said Carroll Muffett, director of international programs for Defenders of Wildlife. "The Kerry Amendment would have fixed one of the biggest problems with it. Without Kerry, Fast Track is just a license for unchecked environmental destruction."

http://www.charitywire.com/charity51/03074.html

Unlike the amendment sponsored by Sen. John Kerry, the Baucus-Grassley Amendment does not set the U.S. Constitution as the benchmark for the scope of property rights available to foreign investors in the United States.

The Kerry Amendment would repair the investment model of NAFTA. Under the Kerry Amendment, a foreign investor would be required to demonstrate that the policy in question was enacted primarily with discriminatory intent against foreign investors or investments.

The Kerry Amendment is based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings on expropriation in that it would guarantee that future trade agreements improve upon the NAFTA model and restrict such investment protection actions to only those cases where government action causes a physical invasion of property or the denial of all economic or productive use of that property.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0515-04.htm

Dear (Decision Maker),

I am writing to ask you to support the Kerry Amendment to FAST TRACK. The Baucus-Grassley Trade Bill is not good enough. I would appreciate your support for this amendment. Specifically, the amendment will:

1. Ensure that foreign investors don't get greater rights than US citizens or investors. We need to make sure that the US Constitution is the benchmark for investor treatment.

2. Clarify the definition of expropriation in future trade deals to conform with the US Constitution and recent US Supreme Court rulings.

3. Protect US laws on public health, safety and the environment from attack by investor-state lawsuits.

4. Ensures that minimum treatment under international law is defined in a way that follows the US Constitution. We don't want to follow that of some other country.

5. Require diplomatic check. Before a corporation could go into one of the secret trade tribunals to sue for taxpayer compensation (avoiding the domestic court system), they should have to check in with their own government.

This amendment will be voted upon soon. I urge you to vote for it and keep the problems that are already happening with NAFTA Chapter 11 from happening under future trade agreements.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address

http://www.unionvoice.org/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=2005

<>

[blm]

1. B...bbut...Kerry is Bushlite.

Fearless leader said so. He wouldn't lie.

[KC21304]

2. And don't forget Bull and Scones. . . . I mean Skull and Bones.

That tops everything else.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. BBBuuuttt, ...but....but....

He voted for it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395

[DrFunkenstein]

8. B-b-but...Dean Supported NAFTA...A-a-and Still Does

He admits he was a strong supporter of NAFTA in 1995—although you would never guess it from his response to the "free trade" question on the AFL-CIO's website candidate questionnaire. Dr. Dean was the leading proponent of electricity deregulation in Vermont—the same policy which bankrupted California—and Dean, unlike others who have wised up, is still all for deregulation.

Conversation with Howard Dean, with Moderator Joe Klein, at the John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation, March 26, 2003, at www.jfklibrary.org:

Moderator Joe Klein: Now, let's move on to one last area ... trade. You were on record in '95, and I think for many years after, as being a very strong supporter of NAFTA. And, in fact, it has had very positive economic impacts on the northern border. However, I saw you in Iowa in October, and you said fair trade is more important than free trade. And I heard you speak against NAFTA at that point. What caused you to change your mind about it? And in general, how do you feel about the notion of free trade?

Dean: I haven't spoken against NAFTA, but your quotes are right. NAFTA was a big benefit to Vermont. We got—

Klein: I've got to say, the union audience I saw you saying that to, thought you were speaking against NAFTA.

Dean: I still think NAFTA was a a good thing. I think the President did the right thing. But the problem is, now, 10 years into NAFTA ... We should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards..."

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030803howard_dean.html

[JohnKleeb]

10. well knowing Kerry is popular with the unions and telling me what you told

me
I think Kerry has a fair ground, its not what my candiate thinks but its not bad either. I agree with Kucinich the most and I support him the most and no its not just issues, I geniuely respect the man for doing what he has done. Kerry and I despite disagreeing on IWR agree on more things than me and Dean, I dont like using IWR as a litmus test, also I think I like Kerry more too as a person too. Thats not to say Dean is a bad guy at all.

[blm]

11. That's how Dean speaks...he makes you THINK he's with you

even when he's not really saying he is. His rhetoric and tone doesn't always match his actual beliefs or policy.

[Nicholas_J]

16. Many people

From progressives to liberal democrats have said the same thing about Dean.
Even Republicans got a kick about how furious most Democrats were with Dean:

"He had a surplus and the 1999 legislature over the screams of the liberals. Liberals up here think of him as a Republican in drag because he won't raise the income tax even higher," said John McClaughry, president of the Ethan Allen Institute, a Vermont think tank that tracked the Dean administration.


"But, yes, the state tax burden is undoubtedly higher because of the property tax increases, and during his years, he constantly increased tax rates on virtually everything," Mr. McClaughry said.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030806-113650-4135r.htm

Liberal Democrats back that up:

Dean kept his distance from his party’s liberals during his governorship.

"He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements," said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats’ liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee...

To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.

By the same token, though, he also supported raising taxes — as long as it wasn’t the income tax — when school funding crises and other issues arose that required it.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp


Progressives indicate the same tendency in Dean:

I know that a lot of you are going to vote for Dean -- he talks a good game; he can be charismatic and charming. But I'm warning you. This man will tell you what you want to hear, or at least tell you something that has some little kernel of something that you can interpret as support for the things that are important to you. But when the time comes to stand up and lead on the issue, to take on the money interests and backsliders in his own party, that stiff little spine will turn into a slinky.

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html

If you want to see things like money to universities cut, college loans and pell grants disappear in order to balance the budget, Deans your man.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. LarouchePub?

Now I understand. :think:

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Wink Wink - It's A Joe Klein Interview - Nudge Nudge

Everything I posted was directly from the Joe Klein interview.

:cry:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. LarouchePub?

Now I understand. :think:

[JohnKleeb]

3. some bushite eh

btw keep on finding reasons to make Kerry my second choice and lol any friend of Ted Kennedy is a friend of mine.

[patrice]

4. Messages sent to my congressional delegations - eom

[gottaB]

6. Kerry also voted for fast-track in the end

The roll call is here. (He had voted yea to pass it before it went to committee as well.)

How does Kerry reconcile the two votes? I've never understood Kerry's position exactly. This is a sincere question.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. The Kerry Amendment Was Connected To Fast Track

Kerry supported Fast Track negotiating authority under both Clinton and Bush. Kerry supports Free Trade, but not free Free Trade.

Kerry is not a protectionist by any means, but he thinks there should be real regulations when it comes to enforcing the environmental and labor standards that effect people. We should try to give trade incentives to those that don't meet American standards, not just cut them off. We've seen what that accomplished in the Middle East.

Here's Kerry on that front. It is a little long, but I assure you that it is absolutely worth the read. Perhaps that will help see his thinking.

"The Middle East isn't on the Bush Administration's trade agenda. We need to put it there.

The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region.

It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs.

Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act.

Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights.

Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much.

Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people?

But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent financial panics from turning into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina.

And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[gottaB]

9. Thank you, but

that raises another question.

Kerry calls for Mideast states to end their boycott of Israel as precondition for favorable trade relations. I don't want to discuss I/P per se, but on the notion of boycotts, John Kerry backed the Massachusetts Burma Law when it went up to the Supreme Court--rightly so, in my view. Because I think people should have the right *not* to do business with countries where governements commit or condone heinous offenses. But by including that statement about the boycotts against Israel, Kerry seems to undercut the principle that states should be free to make such decisions. It just strikes me as not very democratic.

Undeniably Kerry has other motivations for this policy initiative besides furthering trade. But as an example of the kinds of standards he would insist upon in multilateral trade deals, there's a prima facie case that it wouldn't further progress towards human rights.

[blm]

12. When he's the one in charge...

imagine what policy he could muscle through. This man THINKS about these issues multi-dimensionally and with a eye towards human progress over profit.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. This Was His Foreign Policy Speech

You are right about his motives for this trade stance: "draining the swamps" of terrorists through job creation, increasing Middle Eastern living standards, and fostering inter-Middle East trade (especially with Israel, crucially so). I find this, well, brilliant and extremely far-sighted.

He also wants to create international anti-corruption programs and help diversify Arab economies to break up the sense of plutocracy and build up the middle-class. In a separate article, he proposes the same thing for Russia and the satellite states.

Kerry does not propose punishing countries that boycott Israel, but he gives incentives for lifting the boycott, much like Clinton's Jordan Free Trade Agreement.

Please allow me to show you another passage from Kerry's policy speech.

"(Most Arab countries) are among the most economically isolated in the world, with very little trade apart from the oil royalties which flow to those at the very top.

Since 1980, the share of world trade held by the 57 member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference has fallen from 15 percent to just four percent.

The same countries attracted only $13.6 billion worth of foreign direct investment in 2001. That is just $600 million - only about 5 % - more than Sweden, which has only 9 million people compared to 1.3 billion people.

In 1969, the GDP of South Korea and Egypt were almost identical. Today, South Korea boasts one of the 20 largest economies in the world while Egypt's remains economically frozen almost exactly where it was thirty years before.

A combination of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education and opportunity, and rapid population growth has proven simply explosive. The streets are full of young people who have no jobs... no prospects... no voice.

State-controlled media encourage a culture of self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the breeding ground for present and future hostility to the West and our values.

From this perspective, it's clear that we need more than a one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans and innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe.

We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again."

[gottaB]

14. Kerry's sharp on foreign policy to be sure....

For the time being I'll accept the Kerry Amendment as a decent indicator of what he'd do on trade issues. That's some flavor of peachy, as it would make real some of the DLC/Hyde Park rhetoric about democratizing global trade.

I'd rather hoped he'd clarified his overall position on trade with the same care he put into the Georgetown address. When he does, I'm sure you'll keep us posted.