Author: globaltradewatch

Crossposted from www.eyesontrade.org.

Once, many of the issues we talk about on this blog were discussed mostly among Rust Belt labor unions or in street demonstrations. But tough questions are increasingly being asked in a variety of places, from the ivory tower to the campaign stump… and in both instances, the focus is on a change in the rules of globalization, rather than perpetuating the stale debate about whether “yes” or whether “no” on globalization. Witness Harvard's Dani Rodrik's new paper, articulating what he says is now the “new orthodoxy” on trade:

We can talk of a new conventional wisdom that has begun to emerge within multilateral institutions and among Northern academics. This new orthodoxy emphasizes that reaping the benefits of trade and financial globalization requires better domestic institutions, essentially improved safety nets in rich countries and improved governance in the poor countries.

Rodrik goes on to push this new orthodoxy further, articulating what he calls his “policy space” approach, allowing countries to negotiate around opting-in and opting-out more easily of international rules and schemes as their development and domestic needs merit. Citing the controversy around NAFTA's investor-state mechanism and the WTO's challenge of Europe's precautionary approach in consumer affairs, Rodrik poses the following challenge to the orthodoxy:

Globalization is a hot button issue in the advanced countries not just because it hits some people in their pocket book; it is controversial because it raises difficult questions about whether its outcomes are “right” or “fair.” That is why addressing the globalization backlash purely through compensation and income transfers is likely to fall short. Globalization also needs new rules that are more consistent with prevailing conceptions of procedural fairness.

And this focus on a change of rules hit the political arena today, with a major policy speech by former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). See here. Among the important points, that thus far are only being articulated by Edwards among the top candidates:

* For years now, Washington has been passing trade deal after trade deal that works great for multinational corporations, but not for working Americans. For example, NAFTA and the WTO provide unique rights for foreign companies whose profits are allegedly hurt by environmental and health regulations. These foreign companies have used them to demand compensation for laws against toxins, mad cow disease, and gambling – they have even sued the Canadian postal service for being a monopoly. Domestic companies would get laughed out of court if they tried this, but foreign investors can assert these special rights in secretive panels that operate outside our system of laws.

*The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let's be clear about something – this isn't just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.

*NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests – not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

*Today, our trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors. The multinationals get their say, but when one goes to Congress it gets an up or down vote – no amendments are allowed. No wonder that corporations get unique protections, while workers don't benefit. That's wrong.

So, our movement has made real progress when things like Chapter 11, Fast Track and the precautionary principle are even being discussed by politicians and academics in the context of trade policy debates. And hopefully Edwards' raising of these issues will put pressure on the other candidates to follow suit. In the meantime, you can help turn the nice words into action by clicking here.

 

What’s for dinner?

 

• Fruit and Veggies laced with pesticides?
• Oysters tainted with Listeria?
• Shrimp sautéed with Salmonella?
• Spinach with a side of E. coli?
• Just plain filthy fish? 

 

Hungry yet? In the last couple months, I know many of us have thought twice while picking our food for our families at the supermarket, and we should. The CDC estimates that 76 million Americans suffer from foodborne illnesses every year, 325,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 die.

 

While the mainstream media is happy to tell the public of the great threats to their health and safety, scaring them stiff into watching the evening news, they rarely ask why the flood of dangerous imports is happening and of our leaders, what can be done to stop it.

 

 A new report by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch offers an answer to those questions. The report called “Trade Deficit in Food Safety: Proposed NAFTA Expansions Replicate Limits on U.S. Food Safety Policy that Are Contributing to Unsafe Food Imports” draws the link between the Bush administration’s damaging trade policies and our food safety problems.

 

Our food imports have increased sharply, almost doubling in value, since NAFTA and the WTO passed in the mid-‘90s. Seafood imports alone have increased 65 percent. For the first time in 2005, the United  States, formerly known as the world’s bread basket, became a net food importer, with a food deficit of nearly $370 million. 

 

There may not be anything inherently wrong with increasing the food imports into our country, but there is something inherently dangerous about doing so when our ability to inspect those imports is decreasing even more sharply than our increase in imports. In 1992, the FDA inspected 8% of all the food imports under its jurisdiction. In 2006, the inspection rate is now less than one percent, a staggering .6%.

 

NAFTA started this trend, and the Bush administration’s policy of free-trade-at-any-cost has made it worse. Under Bush, the U.S. has already expanded NAFTA to Central America and is now pushing for passage of NAFTA-expansion deals to Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. 

 

The real problem is that these so-called “trade” agreements do more than increase trade of goods between nations. Trade rules incorporated into the proposed FTAs with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea limit food safety standards and border inspection. The agreements require the United  States to rely on foreign regulatory structures and foreign safety inspectors to ensure that food imports are safe. The agreements require that the U.S. food safety regulators treat imported food the same as domestically produced food, even though more intensive inspection of imported goods is needed to compensate for often weak domestic regulatory systems in some exporting nations.

 

Last November, Democrats won a much-needed and much-deserved majority in Congress, and trade issues played no small part in helping usher in new leadership. 37 supporters of our failed trade policy lost their seats to Democrats campaigning on fair trade. The food safety issue is just one aspect of the Bush administration’s trade policy that has hurt Americans, but it’s also an issue that Democrats can start fixing right now to make a real difference in people’s lives. While several Democratic leaders have proposed legislation to help mend our food safety regulatory system, none of those steps will suffice if our leaders keep passing these Bush administration trade deals. The first step that Democrats can take is to vote “no” to NAFTA expansions to Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. 

 

To read the report, sign a petition or find out what you can do to protect yourself from dangerous imports visit http://www.citizen.org/trade/food/ or read our blog, http://www.eyesontrade.org for continuing coverage of the unsafe food import crisis.