Ron Kirk rejects any 'timeout' on new NAFTA-like free trade pacts

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0303/Ron-Kirk-rejects-any-timeout-on-new-NAFTA-like-free-trade-pacts

The Obama administration is pouring cold water on a suggestion from some congressional Democrats for a “timeout” from new free trade agreements until the existing accords – including NAFTA, the poster child for free-trade pacts – can be fully assessed.

US trade representative Ron Kirk says he will press hard to persuade trade-wary Democrats and Republicans of the merits of President Obama’s trade policy agenda for 2010. The agenda includes completion of the Doha Round of global trade liberalization and passage of pending US free-trade agreements (FTAs).

The US has negotiated FTAs with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea – all of which are awaiting congressional ratification.

Ambassador Kirk, speaking at a Monitor lunch with reporters Wednesday, said the administration will work to address concerns about the impact of new trade pacts, but he was categoric in his opposition to any measures to slap an indefinite hold on the trade accords already gathering dust. (For an analysis of the rising wariness about free-trade pacts, click here.)


more at the link above --

[damntexdem]

1. Congress needs to take a stand.

No more "free" trade agreements should be ratified -- their "free" is too costly.

It's time to take a stand for fair trade, not free trade.

[gratuitous]

2. Do we have those "side agreements" figured out yet?

You know, the ones where workers' rights are guaranteed and environmental considerations are an equal part of the mix, along with the profit motive? Or do workers and people who breathe for a living still get the shaft while others get the gold?

[Oregone]

3. That stuff still wont help the American worker much

Its still not going to make America compete in wages against people living in shacks

[gratuitous]

4. Immediately? Probably not

But in the longer term, with worker rights guaranteed, wage and hour laws in place and in force in all signatory countries, it might make the temptation of moving jobs to cheaper labor havens less alluring, since companies would have to observe the same laws no matter where they located. And who knows? If those "side" agreements (which should have been an integral part of any free trade agreement in the first place) had been in place from the get-go, the fruits of the free trade bonanza might have been shared a little more equitably between labor and capital, instead of being concentrated into the few hands of those who had rigged the system in the first place.

Instead, we're already 15 years behind in terms of worker rights and environmental considerations from NAFTA, and the template for screwing the many for the benefit of the few has already been cast in stone to serve as the basis for future agreements. Kirk should be told in no uncertain terms to go pound sand until he's addressed the shortcomings of NAFTA. Once that's been done, then Congress can consider other so-called free trade agreements.

[Oregone]

5. Yes, it will be less alluring because it increases the cost of labor

But still alluring it will be because of the absolute disparity in standard wages between many trade partners. I'm just saying, those promised technocratic solutions are not the panacea because standard of living is not homogeneous. These free trade agreements need to go away completely to be replaced with agreements that allow reasonable tariffs, but indicate punitive tariffs to embargos will be the result if people violate environmental and labor agreements.

You can pressure the world to move up without taking away you ability to look after domestic workers.

[gratuitous]

6. Some mechanism should have been in place early

I’m not sure what the best mechanism would be, whether labor and environmental laws (complete with teeth) that require companies to pay their workers living wages and benefits and not leave a toxic mess behind when they skedaddle for currently greener pastures, or tariffs to be triggered by failure to meet these labor and environmental targets. Practically any solution seems fraught with loopholes to be exploited by the cunning and the corrupt.

What we can definitely be sure of is that we’ve already lost 15 years to a solution that was supposed to be “temporary,” but which quickly became permanent, because it wouldn’t be fair to companies to have to operate under the uncertainty of evolving labor and environmental standards. Meanwhile, workers die, communities are poisoned, and the promised riches of free trade inure solely to the well-connected.

Congress should still tell Mr. Kirk to piss up a rope.

[amborin]

7. K&R