What's Driving Barack Obama's Trade Agenda? Just Asking...

The letters from readers-- and ex-readers-- asking when we're going to stop attacking the president is growing in volume. I ask the question myself sometimes! But the answer is always the same. We'll be able to concentrate exclusively on Republican fascism when Obama stops pushing his conservative agenda down America's throats. He may be running around the country trying out his new/old populist rhetorical roadshow this week, but he also sent over the job-killing, economy-crushing, Wall Street/GOP-pleasing trade agreements to Congress at the same time. He's on the stump howling about the jobs bill he knows isn't going anywhere while his own Administration is pressuring New Deal Democrats to join with the Republicans to pass more anti-Fair Trade bills.

The AFL-CIO and the rest of organized labor have given Obama a free pass on everything and will support his reelection drive. And he knows it. And because he knows it he can play footsie with Wall Street and Big Business and ignore the legitimate aspirations of working families to an extent he wouldn't dare if labor was less tethered to a Democratic Party that as disappointed its members again and again. This week the AFL-CIO explained what's wrong with these three awful trade bills Obama and Boehner are pushing.

• The Korea agreement is the largest off-shoring deal of its kind since NAFTA. If enacted, it likely will displace 159,000 U.S. jobs, mostly in manufacturing. And its glaring loopholes would allow unscrupulous businesses to import illegally labeled goods from China and possible even from sweatshops in North Korea-- potentially without any tariffs at all.

• In Colombia, one trade unionist is murdered nearly every week and almost none of the murderers are brought to justice. In 2010, 51 trade unionists were assassinated in Colombia-- more than in the rest of the world combined. So far in 2011, another 22 have been killed, despite Colombia’s heralded “Labor Action Plan.” Would we reward a country where 51 CEOs were killed last year?

• And the Panama agreement has many of the problems of the other two deals, like deregulating big banks and letting foreign investors bypass U.S. health, safety labor and environmental laws. Panama is also a tax haven: a place where tax-dodging, money-laundering millionaires and billionaires hide their money.

Human Rights Watch has found, unlike the Administration and it's shady allies, that there's been virtually no progress in getting convictions for killings that have occurred in the past 4 1/2 years. Republicans have publicly cheered this but why is Obama making common cause with these people. It's a disgrace and he needs to be called out on it. Maybe if we had been more forthright in calling out Bill Clinton when he pushed through NAFTA with the Republicans, we wouldn't be in the dire economic straits we're in today. Remember, Bush I couldn't get NAFTA passed. Clinton and Rahm Emanuel did it for Big Business. Bush II couldn't get these crappy deals through Congress. Obama is telling Big Business he can do it for them. The Communications Workers of America went deeper into explaining the monstrousness of the Colombia deal in particular. "The critical issue that must be addressed in Colombia," they write, "is how work is organized to prevent workers from forming unions."

The overwhelming majority of workers in Colombia are classified as “cooperativos” and contractors. This status means that 15 million of the country’s 18 million workers are not eligible for workplace protections and collective bargaining, nor can they receive government-backed health care and retirement benefits that are provided to “workers.” 

Colombia remains a dangerous and deadly place to be a union supporter. Violence and murder are used all too frequently to intimidate workers from organizing and bargaining for a better life. Over the past 25 years, nearly 3,000 union activists and leaders have been murdered in Colombia, more than in all other countries combined. Last year 51 trade unionists were murdered, more than in 2009. Yet, the Colombian conviction rate for these murders and other forms of violence against trade unionists is in the single digits.

The Obama administration developed the labor action plan to address areas ignored by the Bush administration when it negotiated this deal. But the Obama administration’s plan lacks accountability and the ability to enforce its call for workers’ rights. CWA has shown how Telefonica, the large communications multi-national firm, has taken no steps to address worker rights issues.

When Obama ran for office, he promised-- over and over and over-- to end the bogus "free" trade deals the Republicans and their financiers love so much. But he's been as bad as any of them in pushing them since being elected. You see what he's delivering? This is what he promised in 2008 (as part of Hope and Change):

• Articulates a vision that trade policies “are not sustainable if they favor the few rather than the many.”

• States that trade deals “must not come as blank checks,” and our support will only be “coupled with an insistent call for reform."

• Promise to reform key global institutions-- including the WTO and the G-8-- so they “will be more reflective of 21st century realities.”

• Specifically states the WTO “must improve transparency and accountability."

• Promise that consumer products coming in from other countries “must be truly safe,” with a requirement that the FTC protect vulnerable consumer populations.

• Promise to enforce trade laws that safeguard workers and farmers “from unfair trade practices–- including currency manipulation, lax consumer standards, illegal subsidies, and violations of workers’ rights and environmental standards."

• Promise of enforceable international labor and environmental standards.

• Promise that no future bilateral agreements “will stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications.”

• Promise to stand firm against bilateral agreements that fail to live up to these benchmarks, with commitment to strive to achieve them in the multilateral framework.

• Promise to amend NAFTA so that it works better for all three North American countries.

• Promise to modernize and expand Trade Adjustment Assistance.

• Promise of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to create nearly two million new good jobs.

• Major Focus put on U.S. renewable energy infrastructure investment, especially the use government procurement policies to incentivize job creation.

• Repeated calls to use trade as a tool to leverage human rights, democracy, economic growth, job creation, and poverty alleviation.

• Repeated ties of trade to support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, equality for women and minorities, and the rule of law.

• Promise to address climate change with “binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.” Promise to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce the incentives for immigration

Is he planning on winning reelection without the support of working families in the Midwest? In Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, workers know exactly what these toxic trade deals do to jobs. This morning I asked Blue America-endorsed John Waltz, who's running against Free Trade job exporter (Whirlpool heir) Fred Upton, about these pacts and he didn't parse his words. "Since the creation of the North American Free Trade deal thousands of our nation’s jobs have been shipped overseas. Shortly after NAFTA was implemented my dad's General Motors plant was moved to Mexico. Most recently there has been bi-partisan support for expanded free trade deals in South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, which they are using the same destructive template as NAFTA. It is horrendous to even think we are proposing free trade deals in countries like Colombia given their history of union members who have been killed there. In a time of economic crisis we should be seeking fair trade deals and a renegotiation of all free trade deals to date. Obviously Fred Upton does not care what these destructive deals do to our nation, which is understandable considering his company Whirlpool has shipped all of their manufacturing jobs overseas. Michigan's Sixth District deserves better than this and I will stand up to anyone including my own party to stop the bloodshed of jobs going overseas."

Bruce Braley (D-IA) and Pete DeFazio (D-OR), co-chairs of the House Populist Caucus sent President Obama a scathing letter about his trade agenda and these three treaties in particular, reminding him of his 2008 commitment to oppose them. Here are some excerpts:

During your presidential campaign, you repeatedly stated your opposition to the Colombia and Korea agreements while pledging to “shut offshore tax havens” of which Panama is one the world’s most significant.

Given your past opposition to the FTAs with South Korea and Colombia, we are eager to understand the basis for your change in position. We recognize that your administration attempted to tackle some of the issues that you raised. However, the outcomes of these efforts have fallen far short of effectively addressing the serious problem that you rightly raised during your campaign. Thus, it is not surprising that most Democrats in the House of Representatives continue to oppose these deals.
 
In 2008, during a speech at the AFL-CIO convention in Pennsylvania, you stated that you were opposed to the Colombia FTA “because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements." During the final presidential debate, explaining your opposition to the Colombia FTA, you said: “The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions... we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights.”
 
Yet, targeted violence against unionists continues to be a major problem in Colombia. Indeed, since you made that statement, the number of unionists assassinated in Colombia annually has grown. And, the evidence is gruesomely compelling that the “Labor Action Plan” that your trade officials signed with Colombia in April 2011 is not altering the reality on the ground in Colombia that you in the past deemed unacceptable for a prospective trade partner country. This year 22 labor leaders have been killed in Colombia. Fifteen of these assassinations have occurred since your administration’s Labor Action Plan was signed. Threats of violence continue to escalate. And, there is no turnaround with respect to the shameful record of impunity for the perpetrators of these attacks, with convictions in only six percent of the 2,860 trade unionists murder cases since 1986. Yet your trade officials continue to certify that Colombia is meeting its obligations under the Plan.

Given this grim reality, and, given violence against union leaders was a primary reason for your opposition, why have you changed your position on the Colombia FTA?
 
You have also stated your opposition to the South Korean FTA calling it “badly flawed” and noting that “the terms of the agreement fall well short of assuring effective, enforceable market access for American exports of manufactured goods and many agricultural products” in a 2008 letter you sent to President Bush. You have also stated: “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." As well, you answered “yes” to an Oregon Fair Trade Coalition candidate questionnaire stating: “Will you require new trade agreements to include core International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions?”

Now you support the same South Korea FTA deal. Yet, it still includes footnote #1 of it labor Chapter inserted by President Bush in 2007 that  forbids reference to the ILO Conventions. You did not obtain the removal of this offensive prohibition during the administration’s 2010 supplemental negotiations on the Korea FTA. And, the only changes in those supplemental talks with respect to agricultural market access was not to improve it, but to extend for several years Korea’s tariffs on U.S. pork.
 
Nor did you remedy the FTA’s rules of origin which thus still allow various categories of goods, including autos and many categories of electronics, to have as much as 65 percent of their value produced outside the U.S. or South Korea and still obtain FTA benefits. Given South Korea’s close proximity to China, Vietnam and other cheap labor nations, corporations will likely use this loophole to flood the U.S. with cheap materials tariff free. This loophole is simply unacceptable and could decimate what’s left of the U.S. auto supply chain and undercut numerous other industries. In a time where we are struggling to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector, why are you supporting yet another free trade agreement that will send good paying American jobs overseas while boosting the bonuses of “cost–cutting” corporate CEO’s?

Late yesterday the House Ways and Means voted out all three of the toxic job-killing trade pacts. The worst of the three is probably the Colombia deal. It passed 24-12. All 21 Republicans on the committee-- Dave Camp (MI), Wally Herger (CA), Sam Johnson (TX), Kevin Brady (TX), Paul Ryan (WI), Devin Nunes (CA), Pat Tiberi (OH), Geoff Davis (KY), Dave Reichert (WA), Lord Boustany (LA), Peter Roskam (IL), Jim Gerlach (PA), Tom Price (GA), Vern Buchanan (FL), Adrian Smith (NE), Aaron Schock (IL), Lynn Jenkins (KS), Erik Paulsen (MN), Rick Berg (ND), Diane Black (TN) and Tom Reed (NY)-- voted YES. Only two Democrats-- but part of Rahm Emanuel's corrupt and conservative New Dem coalition, Joseph Crowley (NY) and Ron Kind (WI) joined them. All the other Democrats on the committee voted NO: Sander Levin (MI), Charlie Rangel (NY), Pete Stark (CA), Jim McDermott (WA), John Lewis (GA), Richard Neal (MA), Xavier Becerra (CA), Lloyd Doggett (TX), Mike Thompson (CA), Earl Blumenauer (OR), Bill Pascrell (NJ) and Shelley Berkley (NV). John Larson (D-CT) was absent.

The Panama vote also found all the Republicans in favor, but only 3 Democrats voted NO-- Pete Stark, John Lewis and Shelley Berkley. And the Korea vote-- with all the Republicans voting against American workers again-- found 5 Democrats opposed-- Pete Stark, John Lewis, Lloyd Doggett, Bill Pascrell (NJ) and Shelley Berkley.