If you liked NAFTA, you’ll love this. North American corporate interests—led by the White House—want to extend their “free trade” dogma throughout the Western Hemisphere—34 countries in all.

Apparently, the economic devastation wrought by NAFTA isn’t enough for these guys. They want more.

We know how the debate will unfold. Trade unionists will say “fair trade” and the opposition will yell “protectionist.” No one on our side is denying, or apologizing, for protecting our members. But then the opposition says, “protecting their members at the expense of workers in other countries.” That statement is just untrue. The free trade unions in all 34 of those North, Central and South American nations sent representatives to Washington, D.C., in advance of the April 21 unveiling of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in Quebec by the heads of the nations, and the labor representatives were in agreement. They are certainly not against foreign trade; they favor trade and lots of it. But what they do demand is what we define as “fair trade,” inclusion in any trade agreement of a guarantee of environmental and worker rights in the affected countries. The definition of worker rights is not new and is not at all complicated. It is an internationally recognized standard, the result of bargaining among management-labor-government representatives in the International Labor Organization. Among its essentials are a ban on slave labor and child labor and a demand for the right of all workers to freedom of assembly, to bargain collectively, and to have wage guarantees commensurate with the economy of that country.

This is not a big deal. We have been able to bargain these rights with employer representatives of the world, only to have them ignored in trade negotiations by representatives of governments who say they represent the interests of all citizens. And certainly we get a deaf ear in the World Trade Organization, whose bureaucrats mimic the pious international investor contention that “trade agreements are not the way to enforce human and workers rights.” If they’re not, what the hell is?

It is interesting to look at how the wording has changed in trade debates. What was called “most-favored nation” status became “permanent normal trade relations” or PNTR for the purpose of the China debate during the Clinton years. This year the Bush Administration is unveiling a new word dance. “Fast track” authority, under which the President can limit Congress to an up or down vote with no amendments to a trade agreement, has become “trade promotion authority” instead. We won on fast track the last time out and it probably remains our best chance to make our trade negotiators take notice of human and worker rights.

Those who stubbornly defend trade deals like FTAA use only one set of figures, “look at the expansion in our exports.” You won’t hear them mention that the U.S. trade deficit last year remained $25 billion with Mexico and $83.7 million with China. And, in China, the whole deficit is American corporations using Chinese labor to manufacture goods which they ship back here.

Let’s all think about what the world’s corporations are wreaking upon the working population of our planet. All of them are truly international with no allegiance to any country. They will move their manufacturing facilities to the countries with the lowest wages and leave starvation and instability behind them until, somehow, the workers of the world can unite to stop them. Sheesh—now that’s a project to consider in another column.

Jerry O'Connor,
International Secretary-Treasurer