Reform NAFTA? How?

[AntiLempa]

Lately there has been a lot of talk about reforming NAFTA. Howard Dean has said it, Gephardt has said it, DUers have said it. . .Hell, I even heard it on talk radio last night. Actually, the guy on talk radio was a staunch Republican and he favored repealing NAFTA. In fact, he said that he was so fed up with how things aer going that he will not vote for Bush. Granted he also said that he wouldn't vote for a Democrat, but this is a start.

Even the mainstream media is beginning to report so called free trade's shortcomings. It seems that now more than ever there is momentum to reform this aspect of our economic system.

If I was in a position of influence, I would push for the repeal of NAFTA and to disband the WTO. In there place, I would push for a greater role of the United Nations. If used properly, this strategy could help strengthen the UN, improve living conditions throughout the world, and improve America’s reputation.

The UN is a Democratic institution, something that NAFTA or the WTO could never be. I believe that this must be taken advantage of and promoted.

What are your thoughts? Should we reform NAFTA and the WTO? If so, how?

[Maple]

1. Well thank goodness

you aren't in a position of influence!

Repeal NAFTA if you want to be in a Depression that would make the 'dirty Thirties' look like a fun time.

And you might check out what the WTO actually is and does.

[cprise]

3. WTO

Is a non-democratic body that gives corporations a framework of international law, where nations and individuals have none. In this sense, it is a neo-con tool used against democratic self-rule and the regulation of industry.

[Maple]

5. The WTO is no such thing

It's like the UN, only for trade.

Check how many countries are involved.

It operates as a clearing house for the countries of the planet.

They all have to agree. It is not autonomous

And use your head for a change, not your ideology.

[AntiLempa]

7. workers rights?

The WTO looks out for the rights of corporations, investors, and the elites. It disregards workers and the environment.

What good has the WTO done for the majority of the Earth's inhabitants?

[Maple]

9. The WTO

is about trade, tariffs, the removal of barriers and so on.

It is not a union.

For gawds sake educate yourself about these things before you come on here with economic gobbledegook.

[AntiLempa]

12. Trade barriers.

You do realize that labor laws are regarded as trade barriers, right?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. ha ha "barriers" - nice code word

barriers, as in labor rights and environmental protections. these are called "barriers to trade" - what they are is "regulations on corporations"

Use you head, not your ideology - why don't you take your own advice?

:)

[AntiLempa]

21. what was i thinking?

silly me.

[cprise]

22. You were thinking

...that 'trade' is part of a whole: economy, society, environment. Normally, there is give and take between them.

A system setup to only maximize trade is a system designed (however unconsciously) to allow the captains of trade to take from the rest.

[AntiLempa]

4. Explain?

I know how the WTO works. It stifles democracy and protects investors. Do you have any prove to your assertion that repealing NAFTA would hurt the American, Mexican, or Canadian workers?

And what is it that you don't like about the UN? What is it that you like about NAFTA? How about the WTO?

[Maple]

8. The WTO

is the WORLD Trade Organization.

Trade ministers go there.

They discuss trade.

They can only do what their govt authorizes.

They are not an autonomous body. Everyone has to agree.

Billions of dollars, and millions of workers have been involved and shifted on the basis of NAFTA.....everything was changed about on that basis, and it's continuance.

Repeal it now, and billions would be lost....and so would millions of jobs.

Find out what the hell things are, BEFORE you decide you fiddle with them.

[AntiLempa]

11. did you read my post?

I think you ignored my post.

What has NAFTA done to improve the living conditions of Americans, Mexicans or Canadians? What has it done to improve the environment?

I realize that the WTO is called the WORLD Trade Organization, but what does that mean? Saddam Hussein won an election with 99% of the vote, does that mean Iraq was a democracy?

If the WTO's sole purpose is to discuss trade, and it is open to everyone, why not just have those discussions within the UN's General Assembly where each country has a vote? Perhaps that would give to much power to a Democratic organization?

[Maple]

14. Focus here for a moment

"The WTO is a rules-based, member-driven organization — all decisions are made by the member governments, and the rules are the outcome of negotiations among members."

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/thewto_e.htm

The WTO is not a union, nor is it an environmental group. It is a WORLD TRADE group. It has other countries in it. It has voting by country. It's taken 50 years to get the current agreement because everyone has had their say, and their disagreements.

You can't REFORM anything if you don't know what it is in the first place.

If you'd bothered to inform yourself on the stats for NAFTA you'd understand the benefits.

The WTO is the old GATT...and it along with the IMF, the World Bank AND the UN are all connected.

The UN is the government wing, the IMF is a monetary fund, the World bank...is a world bank. Also connected is UNESCO, and the International Criminal Court, and all the other world bodies you've ever heard of, without understanding them apparently.

If all you want to do is discuss some far-fetched idea of it, or argue ideology, you won't get anywhere.

Nor will I be here to explain it to you.

But it might be nice if you looked them up, and learned what they are, what they do, and how they operate first, before you attempt to denounce them to everyone. Or 'reform' them. Sheesh.

Ignorance is NOT bliss.

Bye.

[AntiLempa]

15. You're funny.

You started attacking me right from the get go. You refuse to answer my questions or comments. I asked you what NAFTA and the WTO have done to improve people's lives and you ignore me.

I know what the World Bank, the IMF, IDB, WTO, GATT, and NAFTA are. I'm not here to play holier than thou - that's obviously your game. I am concerned about the future.

Unfortunately some people - yourself included - refuse to discuss alterntatives. What's worse is that you don't defend your position. You choose to insult and belittle.

I am open to hear about successes that the WTO and NAFTA have had, unfortunately you aren't willing to share any. All you can do is quote the WTO's webpage. Isn't that just like quoting the White House's webpage proving that the Bush Administration is trying to help the lower class?

You're right, ignorance isn't bliss.

[cprise]

2. Model it after the EU

Create a continental parlaiment and expand international rights beyond the domain of corporations: Give individuals rights to move and work and organize continent-wide, just like the corporations have with NAFTA.

[AntiLempa]

6. how about

How about using the UN to unite the EU, the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Australia?

[Maple]

10. How about

we keep political sovereignty and trade matters separate?

Two different things.

[AntiLempa]

16. are they really?

I disagree.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. how are political soverignty and trade separate?

If a country can't control its trade, how can you call it soverign? Unless you believe that a corporation should be soverign, like a totalitarian state. I know there's a lot of liberatarian types who believe that.

[cprise]

20. Exactly wrong

Trade matters are subject to political sovereignity, and don't you forget it.

The only nations to successfully pull themselves up by their bootstraps were those allowed to protect and nurture (and create) emerging industries: the U.S., Japan, S. Korea, Hong Kong.

A system of internation law to empower corporations, and no one else, is unacceptable. The WTO wields real power against governments, where the U.N. never had any and is losing the influence it did have. And since the WTO (and agreements like NAFTA) operate in a legal vacuum and do not themselves factor in the rights of workers, consumers and the environment, then what you have is a tool for corporate despotism. WTO Message: "Install CEOs and board members in your regulatory agencies, or risk litigation and humiliation." No wonder you can't tell big business from government anymore.

[texastoast]

13. And now CAFTA is on Fast Track

I opposed NAFTA because I knew it would send jobs north and south, and it has. We have a lot of Mexican truckdrivers in Texas who cross the borders and are not subject to the scrutiny of the DOT as are resident truckers. The DPS just leaves them alone, doesn't check any log books, weigh them, etc.

We have had numerous accidents because the trucks the Mexicans bring up are in terrible mechanical condition (bald tires, bad brakes, and worse emissions).

If we are going to have these global agreements, the playing field needs to be level. Under NAFTA and my personal experience, it is not.

[will work 4 food]

19. The only

way to level the field now, is A) war, and a big one or B) Alot of us get used to alot less money.

[w4rma]

23. Gov. Dean's position on free trade (pro-fair trade)

…
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
…
HOWARD DEAN: What I would say is, we've gone the first mile. The first decade has worked, for exactly the reasons you say. I don't disagree with the premise of the free traders. I had this discussion with Bob Rubin, and I said, "Here's the problem. We need an emerging middle class in these countries, and we're not getting one. So now is the time to have labor and environmental standards attached to trade agreements." He said, "You're totally wrong. I can't disagree with you more." I said, "How would you address the problem?" I haven't heard back. You have to deal with this problem. It's a serious problem.

JOE KLEIN: What if they say no?

HOWARD DEAN: Then I'd say, "Fine, that's the end of free trade."

JOE KLEIN: What do you mean, that's the end of free trade? Then we slap tariffs on these countries?

HOWARD DEAN: Yes.

JOE KLEIN: So you'd be in favor of tariffs at that point.

HOWARD DEAN: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can't get people to observe human rights, and say that we're going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don't think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We're enabling that to happen. I'm serious.
…
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=46131&mesg_id=46131&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=

I don't think he goes far enough, but this position isn't going to scare most folks with beliefs similar to Maple into working against Gov. Dean.

[German-Lefty]

24. Generic "fair trade" problem, says some guy in the EU

You might want to listen to Maple's posts some more. Here's the deal in order to have "fair trade" you're going to have to tell other coutries what they can do in thier country to trade with you.
1) What framework use? WTO right now.
2) Who decides? EU and USA have most of the power.

So you wana make the system more democratic eh??? Well you could go one country one vote, but the majority of countries on Earth are still dictatorships. You could weigh them by population; ok so China and India would just decide. Right now the industrialized countries get more say. So when the EU and USA decide something in a back room it goes. If our western leaders would push for real fair trade, everything would go well, but what tends to happen is that they do what is in "thier intrests". Usually that means in the interests of people who donated the most money to a political campaign.

A major question. How fast do we want our world to grow together. Sometimes the growing pains may be worth it to build a bigger world market that pushes for fair trade. Sometimes you have to slow down our integration. Do you share a market with China hoping that the increased wealth will enable social change, or do you demand the form a democracy before you trade with them?

Perhaps the WTO would work better in stages where a country gives up more control to the organization in order to get more say.

Want to see something cool with the EU. Look at all the things Turkey is doing to get into the EU.
1) abolish death penalty
2) give more power to parliment
3) actively fight torture
4) grant Kurds more rights
5) remain a very secular nation
Seems like the EU's honey technique sure beats the US's "liberation" of Afgahnistan and Iraq. Ok maybe that comparison was a bit unfair, but you see the point.

One more point. The societies must catch up with the markets. When American and Mexican workers strike together, when Americans care about the enviroment in Mexico, when Americans push thier leaders to take care of all of NAFTA then maybe there will be improvements over the whole.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Well, it would have been great

if Canada had insisted that the U.S. provide national health insurance and if the U.S. and Canada had insisted that Mexico give land rights to peasants, but NAFTA has been all about the rights of corporations to screw workers and even sue to have "barriers" to trade removed--such as the right of a Mexican village not to accept toxic waste from a U.S. company.

[German-Lefty]

26. I agree

Maybe if Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans organised together more you could fight these problems. My guess is that Mexico isn't ready to join up with the US and Canada. The cool thing about the EU is that you have the right to live anywhere in it. I don't think Americans are ready to do that with Mexico, except for a couple libertarian nuts.

What do you do about Mexico? Trade with them, and hope they get better? Or put a big wall up and tell them to fix themselves first?
:think:
Hey, perhaps what we need to do is to make trade agreements for things that don't produce as many problems with 3rd world coutries.
1) Natural agricultural products with no pesticides or genetic engineering.
2) Hand made goods.
3) Services: programming, call centers, ect
Don't let the US buy things like:
1) Chemicals
2) raw materials that damage too much of the enviroment
3) products of slave labor
Once those coutries become "rich" enough they'll develope social structures that prove they can handle big corporations.

On one side it reminds me a bit of colonialism, but it seems fair since they can have any industry in thier coutry. We just won't pay for the bad ones until they clean up.