DLC Positions on Trade...pt. 1 CAFTA

[SaveElmer]

This is a big article...so will only post bits and pieces...

<snip>
This should not obscure the fact, however,that CAFTA is in the best interests of the United States and the six partner countries. Oscar Arias,former president of Costa Rica and Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his work to end the civil wars of the 1980s in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, is convincing when he argues that approval would mean job creation and economic stability for the region, and that rejection would “send a chill through our hopes to achieve
self-sustaining democracies.”2 In this spirit, the U.S. House should pass the agreement for three reasons:

1. Economics: American exporters,struggling for the past five years, should see real,if modest, benefits. Central America and the Dominican Republic, fearing loss of exports and jobs after the 30-year-old U.S. textile quota system was abolished last winter, may find
CAFTA essential as they weather the transition.

2. Social reform: The labor and environmental provisions in CAFTA are similar to previous trade agreements, especially now that they have been strengthened with the capacity-building and technical cooperation
commitments won by Democratic supporters of the agreement.

3. Hemispheric strategy: The deliberation on CAFTA—as Congress’ principal Latin American policy debate in this decade—will profoundly influence the attitude of Latin American peoples and governments toward the United States, and will therefore shape relations
among the hemispheric democracies under the next U.S. president.
<snip>


<snip>

The principal argument of CAFTA’s progressive opponents is that the agreement does not address labor issues strongly enough. More particularly, opponents believe that the argument should commit CAFTA partners to laws that fully implement the core standards of the International Labor Organization (ILO), and that it should provide the same enforcement measures, ultimately sanctions based, that apply
to more traditional trade disputes. Labor problems in Central American and Dominican export industries are well-publicized and real. But they are part of a larger, complex environment, in which export-oriented jobs are often already much better than the alternatives. Wages for Central American and Dominican garment workers, for example, appear to be considerably better than wages for similar jobs in South America and East Asia. Working conditions and wages in CAFTA-member export industries (as elsewhere in the developing world) also receive far more international attention than maid service, seasonal rural labor, construction work, or the other occupations open to less-educated and less-skilled workers. For example, while the CAFTA debate has focused closely on the work environment in export industries, Arias points out that fully 70
percent of Guatemalan workers are in the informal sector. Solutions to the problems in export industries need to be designed carefully if they are to have humane rather than harmful effects. The progressive challenge, therefore, is threefold:

! To encourage adoption of higher labor standards for CAFTA export industries, but also in the CAFTA economies more generally;

! To simultaneously encourage investment in the CAFTA countries, which sustains growth and provides better-paying jobs; and

! To avoid measures that force export
workers out of their jobs or make it harder
for low-income workers in informal and
rural industries to find better-paying jobs.

[SaveElmer]

1. kick...someone asked me to post...any opinions on this

I don't know too much about it so I am all ears!

[gizmo1979]

2. All the countries involved in CAFTA

combined don't have the buying power of columbus Ohio.What the hell are they going to buy?

[SaveElmer]

3. Question then...

Would this in any way help those countries in terms of lowering prices on good from the U.S. I don't really know what kind of tarrifs etc they might have imposed...

The support for it seems high in those countries...but I am not really up on the politics to know if this is just elites speaking.

I know Oscar Arias is for it which has to give it some legitimacy

[gizmo1979]

4. I thought they were protesting it

the last I saw,maybe I was mistaken.

[Selatius]

6. The folks in the streets are protesting it

The governments often don't listen to the people, especially since many of them have been reduced to corporate kleptocracies. Historically, they've oppressed the people instead, as opposed to recent developments in places like Venezuela.

[1932]

21. The general strategy is to lower prices on the US goods that compete with

the few indigenous industries in those countries so that they're destroyed by the competition and so that large US multinationals fill the vacuum left behind.

That's what happened to Jamaica's dairy industry. Subsidized powder milk from the US -- a heavily processed food, requiring a lot of energy and time -- destroyed the local milk industry. Cheaper milk meant that more Jamaicans had access to milk. However, the point was something like WalMart: the cheap stuff drives out the competition. When the competition's gone, the price of the cheap stuff goes up.

And the bigger point is that these trade agreements are written for the benefit of American multinations whose interests have converged with the US government's.

[Selatius]

5. The point of the matter is that these bills were written by big business

NAFTA was a piece that written without the input of ordinary citizens, labor organizations, or environmental groups in general. The US economy grew despite NAFTA, not because of NAFTA. Why? Because of the sweat and labor of ordinary Americans who hold up the damn economy, not these agreements written by multinational business interests.

If you want trade in a capitalist society, then you should pit workers against each other on an even playing field. The winner is the one who can produce the highest quality product for the same price, not the one who can produce the cheapest product possible. A socialist would tell you that rather than pitting workers against each other, the workers all over the world should join hands in mutual cooperation for mutual survival and the benefit of all mankind.

The simple fact of the matter is that many Latin American countries are too poor to afford our own products. There IS NO MARKET for US products down there, but there certainly is a damn market for labor for US corporations down there.

What I fear will happen is that it will help the corporatists move the factories elsewhere even further to exploit cheap labor, while American workers are laid off and forced to take jobs in the service sectors that pay a fraction of their former jobs. At the end of the day, the corporatist ends up with the most money, while everyone else is poorer.

[SaveElmer]

7. Good points...

Do yo have any insight on any labor or environmental protections built in to CAFTA..

[Selatius]

13. This seems pretty suggestive:

2. Social reform: The labor and environmental provisions in CAFTA are similar to previous trade agreements, especially now that they have been strengthened with the capacity-building and technical cooperation commitments won by Democratic supporters of the agreement

Gee, previous trade agreements? What else could they be referring to but NAFTA!? It even admits that it wouldn't be so crappy if it weren't for progressives trying to water down the crappiness by trying to insert provisions that try to protect workers, but you know damn well that when the document was first drafted, those provisions weren't in there to begin with, which suggests that it was written despite citizen approval.

[SaveElmer]

14. Sure looks that way...

I did figure they were talking about NAFTA, but didn't know if there were other agreements they may be referring to...certainly looks to me like it isn't worth supporting...not without better labor protections.

Question: Do you think trade agreements of this type, with acceptable labor and environmental protections would be worth passing...and

How would you respond to those who say that forcing poor countries to spend money to come up to our standards would make the agreement functionally useless. Would yo be in favor of direct aid from the US to help with this, or should companies that trade with them be responsible?

[Selatius]

20. This would be my answer:

Ultimately, no, since trade agreements of this type would not make much sense if you included provisions progressives have fought for. The point of the trade agreements in the first place was to allow capital to move through countries far more freely, while leaving behind labor. Since labor worldwide is not unified, the ones who control capital can play on the divisions by exploiting, for instance, the differences in pay with workers in different countries.

It becomes a race to the bottom. The simple fact is a person in the US being paid a bare minimum of $5.12 an hour has no way of competing against a Chinese worker being paid the equivalent of 60 cents an hour...for doing the same thing. There's absolutely no way to say that competition between the two in such a scenario would end up in anything but impoverishment of the American worker and the exploitation of the Chinese worker. Only a relative few would be better off in the end.

Every person's labor should be treated the same regardless of where they were born or where they live. How is it fair to pay a human being differently from another human being for doing the same task because of where he came from or where he lives? That's not free trade. That's inhumanity in the name of consumerism and cheap prices.

If poor nations are to rise up, then first and foremost, they should not have economic policy imposed upon them by either the US government or business interests. The people in these respective countries must do it with their own hands. If they need help, then help should be offered, but these trade agreements should not be forced down the throats of anyone.

As a socialist, I'll tell you the answer is that all people should recognize each other as humans who deserve the same fucking chance as every other human being on this planet we're currently turning into a wasteland. Rather than endless competition, I'd advocate mutual cooperation where a day's work is treated with the same respect that any individual deserves regardless of one's origins or skin color or religion or creed.

[whosinpower]

16. And that is the reason why

We should avoid Cafta.

Honestly - the DLC.....sheesh......I mean COME ON already - is there anything they disagree with Bush on?????????

[name not needed]

8. Thanks SaveElmer

You've damn near convinced me to vote Green in 2008.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

9. I'm DEFINITELY voting Green!

I really think DU has convinced me to do that, no lie.

[SaveElmer]

11. I'm sure they will be glad of your support...

Good luck to ya!

[1932]

22. I believe a lot of Dems are against CAFTA.

[paineinthearse]

26. A lot of rethugs are against it, too

There was a news conference at 5PM, covered by CSPAN. Watch streaming video at www.cspan.org, or reruns in CSPAN TV.

[1932]

27. Apparently not.

[SaveElmer]

10. I wasn't really trying to convince anyone of anything...

I just thought since there was so much discussion going on about the DLC that it would be interesting to look at what positions they are actually putting out there and talk about them.

I really don't know much about CAFTA one way or the other...so am getting educated. Really, in my view if there are not some pretty good labor protections in the agreement it is probably a bad idea!

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

19. Nothing against you, dude

I'm just sick of hearing the same DLC talking points bullshit over and over and over and over. So far, they haven't been working. Maybe it's time to a) make some new talking points or b) find some other party or organization who actually would like to stand up for the ideals real liberal thinking people have.

[Smirking_Chimp]

12. DLC/Cafta is reason labor split the dems.

[FtWayneBlue]

15. CAFTA + NAFTA = SHAFTA!

It will mean more lost jobs for us, more pollution and slavery in third world countries. We need to put pressure on the DLC to change their position. How can we do that?

[SaveElmer]

17. Probably the same way you would pressure any group..

Email, letters etc.

I asked this above: If acceptable provisions were put into an agreement such as this to protect labor and the environment...would you be supportive?

And, how would you deal with the problem of poor countries forced to spend money they don't have to bring their systems and employee protections to our standards? WOuld you advocate direct aid from the US/ Or should companies who conduct a certain amount of trade with them be responsible? It seems as though unless we solve this problem, these agreements will never work.

[FtWayneBlue]

18. I just sent them an email, asking if it was true they were supporting

it, and explaining why I thought they shouldn't.

http://www.dlc.org/cobrand/contact_us.cfm

[paineinthearse]

23. I lost my high tech job to NAFTA, thanks, Bubba/DLC

Will never support a member of the DLC again!

[SaveElmer]

24. Certainly a valid viewpoint from someone directly affected...

Do you mean by this that you wouldn't support any member of the DLC running for President ? I mean like almost half the Democratic delegation in the Senate are members, and alot of the governors.

What if it was a DLC member ran, but expressed the opinion that he/she did not agree with the groups views on trade?

Guess I am asking if DLC membership is an automatic disqualifier in your eyes, or is there wiggle room in your position?

P.S. Thanks for kicking all my posts!!!

[paineinthearse]

25. I can't swallow 99% of the corporatist positions, so

I could not support any for re-election or election to higher office. Being a member is an automatic disqualifier for any support, period.

To me, they may as well be members of the GOP.