Obama Takes Credit For Bush’s NAFTA-Style Korea Free Trade Deal He Once Opposed

[Donnachaidh]

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/12/06/obama-takes-credit-for-bushs-nafta-style-korea-free-trade-deal-he-once-opposed/


“We’re not going to stop globalization in its tracks, but we shouldn’t be standing idly by while American jobs are shipped overseas. It’s time to put Main Street ahead of Wall Street when it comes to trade. The only trade agreements I believe in are ones that put workers first – because trade deals aren’t good for the American people if they aren’t good for working people. That’s why I opposed CAFTA. That’s why I oppose the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. -Barack Obama on the campaign trail, 11/13/2007

Three years later, Obama is taking bows for that very same South Korea Free Trade Agreement, negotiated by George Bush in 2007. He made a couple of changes that could potentially net the automakers a few hundred more jobs — but got no guarantees, and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs. And all the things he said he opposed in the deal, that were bad for American workers and the environment, like limiting our ability to regulate banks and forcing American taxpayers to submit to judgments made by World Bank and UN tribunals? He didn’t touch those.

So what does this deal do?

Like NAFTA and CAFTA, the Korea FTA (KORUS):

* Allows foreign corporations to operate inside the United States under privileged international trade agreements rather than having to obey our laws that apply to our businesses.
* Prohibits us from limiting the size of banks — and thus we give up the right to decide what “too big to fail” is on our own shores
* Prohibits us from banning risky financial goods and services (like derivatives trading), otherwise US taxpayers will have to pay compensation to international companies for the profits they won’t be able to steal reap from engaging in such transactions
* Prohibits us from stopping capital transfers unless the IMF approves – even to fight money laundering and other financial
crimes
* Bans the government’s ability to adopt “buy American” policies, determining how US tax dollars can be spent.
* Limits what policies states and localities can establish over land use, and allows any such policies to be attacked in foreign tribunals if they do not conform to the trade pact’s constraints
* Forces the United States to submit to the judgment of foreign tribunals
* Elevates foreign corporations to equal status with the sovereign United States, empowering foreign companies with new rights to sue the U.S. government before the UN and World Bank tribunals, skirting US courts.


MORE at the link ---

[OHdem10]

1. The Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street are high-5ing.

All of a sudden, Obama is getting more favorable
coverage at Fox.

[somone]

2. So out of character

NOT

[TorchTheWitch]

3. Bush's NAFTA?

You aren't aware that NAFTA was a gift from Clinton?

[Brickbat]

5. This is Bush's Korean NAFTA. It's NAFTA-style.

[TorchTheWitch]

9. That Bush never put into place - Obama will

So we got the original NAFTA from Clinton and now the Korean NAFTA from Obama. And somehow I'm supposed to look at this as Bush's fault. How nice.

Why am I supposed to give a shit who came up with the plan when in both NAFTA cases it's a Dem responsible for putting it into place? I don't care if Atilla the Hun or Stalin or Hitler or Darth Vader that dreams up the shit, I care who it is that's kicking us in the ass by putting it into place. Calling it Bush's plan doesn't clean either Clinton's or Obama's hands any in delivering it.

[Brickbat]

14. Which is exactly the point.

nt

[obxhead]

4. Obama is not Bush.

He just supports Bush policy.

[Brickbat]

6. More economic terrorism.

[laughingliberal]

7. K & R nt

[eilen]

8. Hear that?

That's the sound of the US working people getting fucked over again.

[somone]

10. Yep. Just a different chapter in the same book

or not even a different chapter.

[amborin]

11. K&R and excellent summary here:

Obama Does a "Lose-Lose" by South Korea Free Trade Agreement
Submitted by Robert Oak on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 14:39 free trade NAFTA south korea Trade Policy
Remember all of those promises during campaign 2008 to finally reform trade and stop NAFTA like trade agreements? Chalk up another one to the win elections rhetoric dust heap. While Obama claims this NAFTA style Bush era trade agreement is the very ole and tired corporate-speak win-win, odds are it's another lose-lose. A loss for the American people and a loss for Obama himself in 2012.

Obama has announced a new trade agreement with South Korea. There is just one new tweak that is better than before, the tariff schedule on autos.

The new agreement calls for South Korea to reduce its tariff on U.S. auto imports from 8% to 4%, and fully eliminate it in five years.

Meanwhile, the 2.5% U.S. tariff on auto imports will remain in place until the fifth year, instead of being immediately eliminated as specified in the 2007 agreement.

Here's what Public Citizen said about the auto tweaks:

Merely tweaking the “cars and cows” market access provisions of Bush’s NAFTA-style Korea trade pact but leaving in place the offshoring-promoting foreign investor protections is a slap in the face to the majority of Americans who, according to repeated polls, oppose the same old trade policy that has cost millions of American jobs.

The Economic Policy Institute performed an analysis on this trade agreement. Contrary to the rhetoric (which also flies in the face of statistics) claiming jobs will be created. EPI found the South Korea trade agreement with lose 159,000 American jobs and increase the trade deficit by $16.7 billion.

If you believe this NAFTA style trade agreement has been reformed, it has not.

The current text includes the extraordinary investor rights that promote offshoring and expose domestic financial, environmental and health laws to attack in foreign tribunals. Signed before the financial crisis, the pact calls for financial services deregulation that is at odds with the lessons we’ve learned from the economic crisis and that may conflict with recent reforms made by both the U.S. and Korea. The pact also explicitly forbids reference to the International Labor Organization’s conventions that establish internationally recognized core labor standards.

How insane is it, with a horrific jobs report, the United States is clearly exporting jobs, to sign up for yet another offshore outsourcing agreement, endorsed by our government?

Buried in another article reading the press release instead of the actual trade agreement, we have this quote by a U.S. Chamber of Commerce watchdog group:

It's crystal clear why the US Chamber is supporting a deal effectively shipping over 150,000 American jobs overseas: As the nation's chief cheerleader for outsourcing, the Chamber gets to go to bat for its top corporate members ... and gets a jump-start on one of its key goals for 2011: tax breaks for outsourcers.

Below is a graph from trade reform on the current deficit with FTA (free trade agreement) countries:







Reuters has a factbox up on the trade deal. Notice how the finance, labor, tax incentives to offshore outsource jobs is not mentioned.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/obama-does-lose-lose-south-korea-free-trade-agreement

[ProSense]

12. Statements on U.S. - Korea Trade Deal from Senators Brown and Kerry, and Rep. Levin

Sen. Brown Statement on Advancement of U.S. - Korea Trade Deal

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) issued the following statement upon news that the U.S. and South Korean negotiators have reached an agreement on a bilateral free trade agreement:

“I continue to believe it is a dangerous mistake to pursue the same kind of trade deals that ballooned our deficit and led to massive job loss. We simply cannot keep barking up this tree as American companies fold and American workers face prolonged unemployment. Until we address China’s currency manipulation and make decisions to reduce our trade deficit, I see no reason to pursue more NAFTA-style free trade agreements.

“I appreciate the work Ambassador Kirk and his negotiators have put into achieving a more level playing field for American autoworkers and manufacturers in the U.S. – Korea agreement. I’m encouraged that the Administration insisted on meaningful changes for automakers. When this deal is final, it will also need to be examined alongside the European Union-Korea trade agreement which achieved limitations on duty drawback provisions, allowing the Korean government to refund the tariffs its automakers pay on imported parts, including those from China. The EU-Korea deal also does not include the harmful investor-state provisions which I have worked for years to reform in our trade agreements.

“President Obama is trying to modernize U.S. trade policy and make the process more transparent and inclusive. Looking ahead, I will continue to work with the Administration on new agreements, especially the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as we try to rebuild a consensus on trade policy.”

Brown is considered one of Congress’ leading voices on trade issues. He is the author of the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment (TRADE) Act, legislation that would require a review of existing trade agreements, provide an opportunity to renegotiate existing trade agreements, and outline principles of what should be included in future trade agreements. The legislation also strengthens the role of Congress in trade policymaking. He also introduced the Trade Enforcement Priorities Act, legislation that would give the federal government more authority to address trade barriers that undermine American workers and domestic manufacturing. This includes the reinstatement of “Super 301" authority, which allows the U.S. Trade Representative to enforce trade laws that promote domestic manufacturing and job creation.

Senator John Kerry (via the WH)

“I am happy to hear that the United States and South Korea have reached a deal on the Korea-U.S. Trade Agreement, and look forward to reviewing the pact and working hard to secure its early ratification. The Obama administration is sparing no effort to send Congress an agreement that can help create jobs and revitalize our economy, and I am pleased the President made the politically difficult decision to take the time to get this deal done right for America. I understand that there are beef export issues that have not been resolved and urge the administration to continue pushing for better access to the Korean market for American beef as we move forward.

“KORUS represents an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to fair and open markets, and for the new Congress to demonstrate that in spite of today’s highly polarized political environment, bipartisan cooperation in the national interest remains attainable. New export opportunities in South Korea for U.S. companies will generate good paying American jobs and contribute to our economic recovery. Moreover, this agreement delivers an important message to an ever closer ally and the region at a time of uncertainty on the Korean Peninsula.

“For many, KORUS has become a symbol of the United States’ commitment to the region and our appreciation of its increasingly important role in international commerce. It is essential that the United States enhance its economic presence in Asia and compete on a level playing field with other exporters in the region. Ratification of KORUS is an important step forward that will have enormously positive economic and political implications for our country in the years ahead.”

Chairman Levin Statement on U.S. – South Korea Free Trade Agreement

(Washington D.C.)- Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander M. Levin (D-MI) issued the following statement today in response to the announcement of an agreement on critical changes to the pending trade agreement between the U.S. and South Korea:

“The changes announced to the U.S. – Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) today are a dramatic step toward changing from a one-way street to a two-way street for trade between the U.S. and South Korea. These changes represent an important opportunity to break open the Korean market for U.S. businesses and workers and boost American manufacturing jobs, particularly in the automotive sector.

“For decades South Korea has employed a unique and ever changing regulatory regime to discriminate against auto imports while the U.S. market has been totally open to their goods. As a result, U.S. automakers exported less than 6,000 cars to South Korea in 2009 while South Korea has used its historically closed market to finance an aggressive push into the U.S. market, exporting 476,000 cars to the U.S. in 2009. The imbalance is so severe that automotive trade accounts for a full three-quarters of the $10.6 billion U.S. trade deficit with South Korea.

“Today’s agreement delays the elimination of the U.S. tariff on South Korean auto exports for five years, unlike the 2007 FTA, which would have eliminated duties on Korean car exports immediately. This development provides leverage to assure that Korea opens its market and provides time for our industry to root itself in the Korean marketplace. Today’s changes will also tear down South Korea’s wall of non-tariff barriers (NTBs), including their improper use of tax rules and discriminatory safety and emissions standards that have shut U.S. automakers out of their market. The changes also include, for the first time ever, an auto-specific safeguard that will protect U.S. manufacturers from a harmful surge of South Korean imports in the future. Most importantly, today’s changes are fully enforceable.

“The FTA also includes robust labor and environmental commitments that are fully enforceable that were agreed to in May 2007. Going forward, the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations provide an opportunity to continue working on other provisions within the framework of trade agreements.

“The changes announced today resulted from the Administration, domestic automotive industry, the United Auto Workers and a key, bipartisan Congressional group standing up for American manufacturing. This was the only way to reverse the historic, lopsided pattern of one-way trade with South Korea. I support today’s agreement. It is important for American manufacturing and American jobs. It is also an important step toward a global rules-based trade system.”

[amborin]

13. Public Citizen condems the trade deal:

December 03, 2010
Obama’s Decision to Push Bush’s NAFTA-Style Korea Trade Deal Without Real Fixes Is Major Policy, Political Mistake
Statement of Lori Wallach, Director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, on 1 p.m. Obama administration press briefing to discuss conclusion of negotiations and the deal struck on the auto chapter of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and GOP congressional leaders must be gleeful that they are getting the Obama administration to take ownership of another Bush NAFTA-style trade deal that would simultaneously favor their job offshoring agenda and put Obama’s re-election in peril.

Why the administration would consider moving another NAFTA-style trade deal is inexplicable, especially given that export growth under past U.S. free trade agreements was less than half of that to the rest of U.S. trade partners. Bush-era International Trade Commission studies show the Korea deal will increase America’s trade deficit, and Americans across diverse demographics are united in opposition to more-of-the-same trade policy.

Choosing to advance Bush’s NAFTA-style Korea free trade agreement rather than the new trade policy President Obama promised during his campaign will mean more American job loss and puts the White House at odds with the majority of Americans who, polling shows, oppose more-of-the-same job-offshoring agreements.

Merely tweaking the “cars and cows” market access provisions of Bush’s NAFTA-style Korea trade pact but leaving in place the offshoring-promoting foreign investor protections is a slap in the face to the majority of Americans who, according to repeated polls, oppose the same old trade policy that has cost millions of American jobs.

BACKGROUND

The Korea free trade agreement (FTA) did not have to instigate what will now be a nasty political battle. It could have provided the perfect platform to implement President Barack Obama’s promised trade policy reforms to remove the worst job-killing aspects of former President George W. Bush’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)-style deal and rebuild bipartisan support for trade expansion. Within weeks of Obama’s June announcement about moving forward with the Korea deal, 110 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to Obama warning that they would oppose the pact in its current form – noting that moving forward with “another job-killing FTA” was “unthinkable” in the current economic climate. They laid out essential reforms needed to the pact’s labor rights, foreign investor offshoring promotion and financial deregulation terms needed for them to support the deal.

Labor unions and consumer and environmental groups also quickly reiterated their calls for the administration to fix the Bush Korea text by removing the worst NAFTA-style terms so that it could become the first in a new era of widely supported trade deals. In September, Obama received a letter signed by more than 550 faith, family farm, environmental, labor, manufacturing, consumer protection and civil society organizations calling for the same core reforms and noting that they could not support the deal in its current form.

The current text includes the extraordinary investor rights that promote offshoring and expose domestic financial, environmental and health laws to attack in foreign tribunals. Signed before the financial crisis, the pact calls for financial services deregulation that is at odds with the lessons we’ve learned from the economic crisis and that may conflict with recent reforms made by both the U.S. and Korea. The pact also explicitly forbids reference to the International Labor Organization’s conventions that establish internationally recognized core labor standards.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama pledged to chart a new course for American trade policy that could create jobs. In speeches, town hall meetings, questionnaires, mailings and paid advertisements in key swing states, Obama said that he would exclude from the pact language the damaging foreign investor rights and their private enforcement that threaten public interest safeguards and promote job-offshoring. He also said he would include strong, enforceable labor and environmental protections. The Korea pact fails on all these scores.

The midterm elections featured an unprecedented 205 candidates campaigning on fair trade themes and against the export of U.S. jobs. Campaigning on these issues is a smart strategy because, after witnessing progressive economic damage over 15 years of NAFTA-style trade agreements, Americans of all stripes are more opposed to them than ever. A recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that a record number of Americans across stunningly diverse demographics think current U.S. trade policy has hurt them