The ‘last war’ rages on against same-old trade agreements
By STAN SORSCHER
The other day, President Obama
spoke to 100 top CEOs from the Busi-
ness Roundtable. He was asked about
two huge new trade deals favored by
global companies, known as TPP and
TTIP. The President taunted critics of
our failing trade policy, telling them,
“Stop fighting the last war.”
That sounds patronizing. Is it true
that companies trying to manufacture
in America, workers, communities and
environmentalists need the President to
explain their interests to them, as if 25
years of lived experience with
NAFTA-style trade deals haven’t been
sufficiently clear?
Another interpretation is that the
President believes his huge new trade
deals really are different — that they
are the 21st century agreements he has
been promising. In this interpretation,
his message is, “Trust me! These deals
will be great.”
Let’s consider that. He is negotiat-
ing these deals in secret. He spoke in a
room of 100 top CEOs, defending their
interests. The precise language is be-
ing written under the guidance of le-
gions of corporate lobbyists, who ad-
vise the U.S. Trade Representative.
Congress and a few non-business spe-
cialists have very limited access, but al-
most no influence, and they are sworn
not to reveal what they see.
If a deal is finished, advocates for
these failing trade policies want an ex-
pedited Congressional approval
process, with no time to explain the
terms of the deal, no realistic public
hearings or political engagement to ed-
ucate the public and no opportunity to
modify the deal. Putting the deal on a
“Fast Track” to railroad it through
doesn’t inspire trust.
Leaks to date show that these new
deals follow the NAFTA template in
their basic features — expanded corpo-
rate rights; special corporate-friendly
tribunals to settle disputes without ac-
countability to any national govern-
ment; the interests of global investors
will take priority over public interests;
and global businesses will be free to
seek the lowest wages and weakest civil
society protections around the world.
These provisions are opposed by the
libertarian Cato Institute, the governor
of Washington — arguably the most
pro-trade state in the union — five key
members of the House Ways and
Means Committee that deals with trade,
and hundreds of civil society organiza-
tions in America and Europe.
Multinational companies have other
interests in play. The deals say nothing
about currency manipulation, which is
great for global companies already pro-
ducing in China. However, currency
manipulation hurts American produc-
ers and encourages offshoring. Biparti-
san letters signed by 230 House mem-
bers and 60 Senators sought action on
currency manipulation.
These deals will have illusory and
ineffective options for environmental
and labor protections and human rights.
Another letter from 153 House De-
mocrats asked for stronger labor rights.
The deals will restrict access to
medicines for millions in developing
countries and will limit prudent finan-
cial regulation. Patent rights could be
expanded to include surgical proce-
dures.
In the American legal tradition, our
threshold for regulation is that it must
serve a public good and have a rational
basis. Multinational companies prefer
a “necessity” test, where national and
state governments would need to prove
to a corporate-friendly trade tribunal
that no other option is possible.
Opposition has been raised on
many issues important to regular peo-
ple. Those objections have been
brushed aside.
Clearly, these aren’t “trade” deals.
They are really about global gover-
nance. Corporate lawyers will sit on
shadowy tribunals and hear cases about
AFL-CIO to take ‘Raising Wages’
campaign to key states, cities
At the AFL-CIO’s National Summit
on Raising Wages Jan. 7, President
Richard Trumka announced new cam-
paigns to expand the raising wages
agenda.
This spring, the federation will
sponsor Raising Wages summits in
four states. Additionally, the AFL-CIO
will organize projects in seven cities to
focus on raising wages in those locales.
AFL-CIO state labor federations in
the first four presidential primary states
— Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and
South Carolina — will take place in
the spring. These summits will bring
together diverse voices to lay out the
JANUARY 16, 2015
the environment, labor rights, human
rights, public health, food security, in-
ternet freedom and financial regulation.
But they will base their decisions on the
corporate values and corporate-friendly
language in the trade deals. They will
take no account of the Constitutions or
legal traditions of the U.S., Canada,
Australia, Japan or any other country.
Language in these “trade” deals be-
comes the new governance standard for
the world.
These deals consolidate power rela-
tionships that favor global investors.
The values and priorities in these deals
bring more wealth and power to those
who already have plenty.
These deals will determine how life
is organized in 2050.
Every President since Gerald Ford
has promised prosperity from each new
trade deal. In our lived experience,
we’ve lost millions of jobs, de-industri-
alized our economy, weakened bar-
gaining power for every worker in
America, run a cumulative trade debt
approaching $10 trillion and we’ve lost
our strategic advantage in manufactur-
ing to Korea, Japan, Singapore, Ger-
many, Denmark and China.
When President Obama pleads with
NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS
entire raising wages platform and es-
tablish state-based standards of ac-
count- ability.
The AFL-CIO identified the seven
cities for raising wages campaigns
where they could have the most im-
pact. The cities are Atlanta, Columbus,
District of Columbia (Metro), St.
Louis, Philadelphia, Minneapolis and
San Diego.
“Raising wages is the single stan-
dard by which leadership will be
judged,” Trumka said. “That means ac-
countability, and it starts with some-
thing we all understand — presidential
politics.”
us to trust him, I hear Chico Marx’ joke
from Duck Soup; “Who are you going
to believe, me or your own eyes?” My
eyes see the lived experience from
every deal since NAFTA.
I’m not sure what the 21st Century
looks like to President Obama. Maybe
he has wonderful new 21st Century lan-
guage in the deals that everyone will
love. If so, he should show it! He
should publish it tomorrow and boast
about it. Repeatedly.
I’m 100 percent in favor of trade.
My job depends on trade. We should
have a good trade policy, which would
be very different from our current fail-
ing trade policy.
It’s completely appropriate to fight
the last war on trade policy. Thea Lee at
the AFL-CIO put it this way in the
Washington Post, “We promise not to
fight the last war, if he promises not to
put the last [flawed] version of the trade
deal on the table.”
It is ironic that President Obama,
speaking to CEOs from the Business
Roundtable, tells the rest of America to
trust him. It makes much more sense
for him to speak to environmentalists,
workers, communities and companies
trying to manufacture in the U.S. Show
us why these deals will be good for us,
when the opposite has been true up to
now.
(Editor’s Note: Stan Sorscher is la-
bor representative at the Society of Pro-
fessional Engineering Employees in
Aerospace, IFPTE 2001. This column
originally appeared in Huffington Post,
and was reprinted in the Washington
State Labor Council’s The Stand.)
...Warren tells
unionists, ‘the
game is rigged’
(From Page 1)
“Instead of building an economy for
all Americans, this country has grown
an economy that works for some Amer-
icans,” Warren said.
“That is a huge structural change in
this country,” she continued.
Warren told union members, “If
we’re ever going to un-rig the system,
then we need to make some important
political changes.”
She said the best place to start is the
Wall Street banks, and those responsi-
ble for causing the crash of 2008.
“We know that democracy doesn’t
work when congressmen and regula-
tors bow down to Wall Street’s politi-
cal power — and that means it’s time
to break up the Wall Street banks and
remind politicians that they don’t work
for the big banks, they work for us!”
she said.
“Changes like this aren’t easy,” she
continued. “But we know they are pos-
sible. We know they are possible be-
cause we have seen David beat Goliath
before ... Change is difficult, but it is
possible.”
PAGE 7