Free Trade Brought to You by the US Chamber of Commerce

Amy Gellatly, ILRF intern

Last week I attended the Trade Visibility Day rally thrown by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Unlike all other rallies I’ve ever attended, the theme of this rally was “how to make money.” The emphasis was on helping small US businesses and creating jobs for US workers. As the speakers explained, if we pass Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama & South Korea, those countries won’t tax our exports as much, and so our small businesses will be able to export more goods to these countries.

Sounds reasonable, right? But wait, we’ve already tried this sort of Free Trade Agreement before. So there’s some real good empirical evidence to show us how the theory ends up working in reality. Fourteen years ago, we signed a FTA with Mexico & Canada, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Over 400,0000 US workers have lost their jobs as a direct result of this agreement. After all, it makes sense. If it’s easier for US companies to build factories in Mexico, where labor is cheaper, they move to Mexico. This scenario is a problem, not just for US workers, but for workers worldwide. As it becomes easier to invest and build factories in Central America or South East Asia, the companies pick up and move on, and no workers anywhere can be sure of their job security.

The speakers at this rally grieved that they couldn’t have a reasonable conversation with those opposed to FTAs because each side of the issue has its own set of “facts.” I also find this contradiction of “facts” troubling. Those in favor of FTAs point to the fact that, since NAFTA, there has been a net creation of jobs in the US. Those opposed to NAFTA however, point out that most of these jobs are of poorer quality than the ones that were lost, consisting of low-paid positions like cashiers, and janitors.

There was a strong emphasis on the FTA with Colombia at the rally, which I learned that “all” sectors of Colombia society support- including unionists and small farmers. I got my very own box full of promotional materials about Colombia as a whole, called “Discover Colombia Through its Heart.” Its intention, I assume was to warm Congresspersons’ hearts to the idea of doing business with Colombia.
These materials included a list of “Recent multimillion investment projects in Colombia.” Number two on the list is Drummond Company, Inc, which is currently involved in allegations that they hired paramilitary thugs to assassinate two leaders of their workers’ union.  This case highlights one particular dilemma of signing a FTA with Colombia. Whether or not Drummond is found guilty of the assassinations, is it ethical for US companies to operate in a country where more union workers are killed than in all other countries in the world combined?  By relocating to Colombia, would these companies not be making a statement that they do not value the lives of their workers?

Luckily, there is a new and exciting alternative legislation to the standard FTAs. The TRADE Act of 2008 proposes holding past FTAs and other trade policies accountable for their supposed goals to improve the economies of all parties involved. It would also insure that future trade agreements would be held to higher standards of human rights, safety, and environmental impact.

Send a letter to Congress in support of the TRADE Act!

Comments

[Miriam Lieberman]

Amy,
You are off on a grand and challenging adventure in the inseparable world of business and politics. Your critical thinking and heart are so apparent in this writing. I hope to learn a great deal from you as you sink your teeth into this.
Kudos!
Miriam