On "free" trade

[j_b]

Selected Campaign Statements By President Barack Obama on U.S. Trade and Globalization Policy

 

Example

Obama On the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and NAFTA Expansion:

“One of the first things I’ll do as President will be to call the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico and work with them to fix NAFTA. We’ll add binding obligations to protect the right to collective bargaining and other core labor standards recognized by the International Labor Organization. And I will add enforceable measures to NAFTA, the World Trade Organization (WTO), CAFTA [Central America Free Trade Agreement] and other Free Trade Agreements (FTA’s) currently in effect. Similarly, we should add binding environmental standards so that companies from one country cannot gain an economic advantage by destroying the environment. And we should amend NAFTA to make clear that fair laws and regulations written to protect citizens in any of the three countries cannot be overridden simply at the request of foreign investors.”1

“I voted against CAFTA and never supported NAFTA. NAFTA’s shortcomings were evident when signed and we must now amend the agreement to fix them. While NAFTA gave broad rights to investors, it paid only lip service to the rights of labor and the importance of environmental protection.

Ten years later CAFTA – the Central American Free Trade Agreement – had many of the same problems, which is why I voted against it. We must add binding obligations to the NAFTA agreement to protect the right to collective bargaining and other core labor standards recognized by the International Labor Organization. Similarly, we must add binding environmental standards so that companies from one country cannot gain an economic advantage by destroying the environment. And we should amend NAFTA to make clear that fair laws and regulations written to protect citizens in any of the three countries cannot be overridden simply at the request of foreign investors.”2

 

3 years later spent not changing an iota of NAFTA:

If you thought President Obama's expressions of sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement meant he was suddenly going to stand up for "the 99%," think again. Obama has just submitted to Congress the Chamber of Commerce-backed Colombia, Panama, and Korea Free Trade Agreements. And now, thanks to maneuvering by Obama and his business-friendly Chief of Staff William Daley and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, they're on an accelerated schedule in Congress. According to a report in The Hill, they will be voted on Wednesday, where they're expected to pass.

 

Obama's move is a brazen display of contempt for the Occupy Wall Street movement's calls for jobs, economic, and environmental justice as well as human rights. These trade agreements achieve a rare trifecta of progressive punching: it's hard to imagine a single initiative that at one time could so infuriate anti-corporate activists, labor unions, and environmentalists at the very moment that these disparate movements are finally finding solidarity and support in the streets.

 

For starters, while properly negotiated trade agreements could help boost U.S. exports and economic fairness, these specific agreements plain and simple cost jobs.

The Korea FTA alone will add a net $13.9 billion to our annual trade deficit with South Korea and cost 159,000 jobs, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute. That's a giant anvil of unemployment around the neck of the economy: when we do start to dig out of the recession, it will take that much more growth just to get back to where we are today.

 

If you like bailouts, you'll love Obama's FTA's. They represent the globalization of disaster capitalism. Now, instead of just being on the hook to guarantee Wall Street firms if they make bad investments, the U.S. government will be responsible for bailing out foreign companies too.

"Investor protection provisions" in the agreements actually give foreign companies the right to challenge U.S. labor and environmental laws if they deem them to be somehow costing them money. The United States then has the delightful option of changing its law or paying millions or billions in compensation to foreign companies... just for obeying our laws like American companies do.

 

Previous free trade agreements have included similar provisions, and governments have already shelled out $350 million, with billions more pending in cases affecting the United States. Critics, such as Public Citizen's Todd Tucker, believe that the investor provisions in these free trade deals are even worse, and the bailouts for foreign companies could reach the billions. In addition to the monetary cost, these provisions have a chilling effect on legislation: before changing our laws, we'll now not only have to assess the effect not only on our own economy and environment, but have to consider the cost to overseas operations of foreign companies as well.

 

We've had experience with this type of provision in previous trade deals, and it's not pretty: just this past month, the World Trade Organization issued a ruling that says notorious Mexican fishing operations must be given "dolphin-safe" labels on their tuna fish -- even though these operations routinely kill dolphins (Mexico's fleet actually seeks out dolphins to cast their nets knowing that they frequently swim near tuna). Just so it's clear, the United States isn't banning import of dolphin-dangerous tuna -- we just insist that tuna fish labeled "dolphin-safe" doesn't actually involve killing dolphins. Crazy.

 

Congress is also being asked to give Colombia preferential trade treatment even though scores of Colombian labor organizers, Afro-Colombians, and human rights activists are murdered every year for trying to boost wages or just hang onto their land (palm oil operations are aggressively cutting down rainforest currently occupied by Afro-Colombians and indigenous people to expand their plantations).

 

The deal would allow companies that want to sell their goods in the United States to pay zero tariff even as they set up manufacturing in a country where they can hire armed gangs to intimidate or even kill workers who advocate for better working conditions or a union. This is an open invitation to companies to shift jobs overseas to countries where they can operate with impunity. It's so bad that Colombian trade unions oppose the deal along with their U.S. counterparts.

 

The Panama deal rounds out the greed train with its own investor provisions. The country is one of the most notorious offshore tax havens. Under the agreement, investors will be able to challenge U.S. efforts to crack down on this type of tax shelter -- a huge sop to the very Wall Street financial institutions that are the direct target of the Occupy movement.

 

As bad as the trade deals are, they could have at least represented a strategic opportunity to pass the President's jobs bill, which is supported by many of the same groups that bitterly oppose the free trade agreements. Obama could cut a deal with Republicans: he only submits the trade agreements on condition that Republicans pass the jobs package, thus compensating for at least some of the employment losses expected to occur under the trade deals.

Of course, that's not going to happen. Obama's not exactly the guy you want walking into a car dealership with you. As I wrote in a tragic-accurate 2007 article about his failure to bargain as a senator on the Peru trade agreement that forecast his inability to haggle his way out of a paper bag of debt ceiling, Obama is "the world's worst negotiator."

Obama Pushes Huge Free Trade Deals to Wednesday Vote

[j_b]

Obama On Agriculture:

“I will work to maintain the American farmer’s competitiveness around the world, and ensure the growth of family farms. My pro-American trade agenda will ensure the interests of farmers and ranchers are not traded off in favor of other industries. I will work to ensure that all trade agreements contain strong and enforceable labor, environmental, and health and safety standards so American farmers are able to compete on a level playing field. I will instruct the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to negotiate agreements that grant American products access commensurate to access provided foreign products to the U.S. market, and I will examine existing U.S. trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA to ensure they do not undermine U.S. farmers.12

 

Obama On Labor and Environmental Standards:

“I strongly support the inclusion of meaningful, enforceable labor and environmental standards in all trade agreements. As president, I will work to ensure that the U.S. again leads the world in ensuring that consumer products produced across the world are done in a manner that supports workers, not undermines them.”13

 

Obama On Global Warming and Trade Agreements:

“The U.S. must lead efforts to combat climate change, but the only effective solution to this global problem will require the development and enforcement of an equitable global agreement that includes the participation of all our major trading partners. I will take all necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that policies designed to reduce global warming pollution are not constrained by trade

agreements.”14

 

Obama on Health Care and Trade Agreements:

“I am committed to signing a universal health care plan into law by the end of my first term of office. I will instruct my USTR appointee to examine any existing WTO regulations, as well as proposed policies put forward by the outgoing Bush Administration, to ensure that these are no existing trade regulations that will affect implementation of this goal.”15

[j_b]

Well worth watching in its entirety:

 

[video:youtube]v=4PQrz8F0dBI

[billcoe]

Yes! You need to vote Rick perry in. He's Christian you know, not a Muslim.

[billcoe]

Yes! You need to vote Rick perry in. He's Christian you know, not a Muslim.

 

 

 

I joke make. Hah hah. Btw, I hear barack was or is, a politician. Have nice day!