Is free trade more important than ending forced labor?

[cali]

The proposed amendments are no-brainers. Why would the United States allow or improve commerce with a country that allows forced labor to be part of its economy? Why would the United States want to reward countries that fail so significantly to value human dignity? And why would the United States want to allow the importing of goods produced by children or those in bondage?

It’s almost impossible to come up with plausible reasons to oppose laws that add teeth to already-existing laws meant to combat trafficking and forced labor.

There is certainly no evidence that increasing free trade with the U.S. improves a country’s record on human trafficking. On the contrary, the State Department has downgraded three countries—Panama, Colombia, and Morocco—since they entered into trade pacts with the U.S. And it’s not like the Obama administration is negotiating trade agreements with most of the lowest-ranked Tier 3 countries, which include North Korea, Syria, Russia, and Uzbekistan.

However, one Tier 3 country, Malaysia, is currently included in negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Another, Thailand, is a potential future member. But given their dismal trafficking records, it’s hard to see why this is even the case.

Malaysia’s record is very bad. Traffickers there operate almost entirely unimpeded, importing refugees and migrants for huge fees and then using the debt to hold persons in “debt bondage,” a system in which people work for low and heavily-garnished compensation, indefinitely in many cases, to repay debts even as they accrue new “fees.”

<snip>

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/241227-is-free-trade-more-important-than-ending-forced-labor
No, tpp boosters, it will fucking NOT fix this problem. duh.

[dembotoz]

1. would we trade with ourselves then

Prison industry is alive and well here

[cali]

2. wow. you didn't know that we trade extensively with nations

across the globe? You didn't know that tariffs are low? You didn't know that most non trade "barriers" are related to environmental and health concerns, such as food safety?

[MaggieD]

3. You were a big fan of Obama

... Back in 2007, weren't you? Stridently so if I recall. Kinda like you are about Bernie now. Or am I misremembering that?

[cali]

4. I was a big supporter of his. Mostly, as I recall, I was stridently opposed to Edwards

long, long before his fall. For solid reasons, I though he was full of shit. And no, I'm not nearly as stridently supportive of Bernie as you are of Hillary. Not even close. I don't know why you are so slow to get this when I've said it to you specifically multiple times: I do not think Bernie can win the primary. I do not think he could win a general election. I support his candidacy because I think the moment is right to aim the spotlight on issues he has fought for for years and because I don't believe that running unopposed is good for the democratic party or the "market" of ideas- or for that matter for HRC herself. Before Bernie got in, (I honestly didn't think he would) I supported O'Malley. If Bernie drops out and O'Malley is still in it, I'll support him.

I think HRC is a lousy candidate for a plethora of reasons. Yeah, I'll vote for her if she is, as is overwhelmingly likely, the nominee- even though I don't need to as VT is the bluest state in the country. But, it won't be with enthusiasm or confidence.

You are the strident loyalist. Not me. Not with Bernie, or Leahy or any other politician. I can't even begin to fathom the type of adoration you and so many others here exhibit. Honestly, it kind of creeps me out- makes me a wee bit queasy.;

[MaggieD]

5. Yeah Edwards was swarmy...

In person. His talking points didn't match his voting record, that's for sure. His wife, on the other hand, was the real deal. I remember wishing she was the politician in the family instead of him.

I'm not a strident supporter of HRC. I would like to see a woman as president. But in a perfect world I would certainly prefer Warren.

I don't think Bernie can win either. But I look forward to his impact on the debate. In the end, i want the most liberal candidate that can win the general. And I don't see the ultility of tearing down any Democrat. The right will do a fine job of that without us.

That's my honest opinion. I have no hidden agenda.

[cali]

6. Yes, I too admired Elizabeth Edwards. She deserved far better.

I'd like to see a woman as president too- but ideas and principles are of more importance to me. I guess defense of a candidate can make anyone look like a strident supporter.

[MaggieD]

7. True - good point

I'll keep that in mind.

[FreakinDJ]

8. ONLY Wall St Profits matter

Every thing else will work it self out in a "Free Market"

[woo me with science]

9. So much for claims of the Third Way to care about human rights, the poor, and the marginalized.

Corporate politicians care about corporate PROFITS. Period.

That is why it is so dangerous to let them infiltrate governments that hold power over human lives.

[cali]

12. Of course. To assume anything else, is just denial of history.

[Rex]

10. To some, free trade is more important than the rest of us on this planet.

They will watch this planet die first, before actually trying to be a productive member of society. Much easier for them to leech from the labor force.

[woo me with science]

11. Kick to expose the hypocrisy of Third Way politicians

when they talk about concern for human welfare.

[davidpdx]

13. I tend to agree with you that forced labor can't be stopped by free trade

Really stopping forced labor will take a more comprehensive plan. Free trade could be part of that, but there would have to be more cooperation on the part of countries like Malaysia, China, etc and monitoring by NGOs. As you stated if there is no enforcement mechanism, then it is pretty worthless.