The PJRC

The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 

     

     

    Follow Tom

                    

    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.
      Friday
      Apr242015

      The Alternative to Obama's Trade Deal

      A protestor is taken away during a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee. (Photo: Reuters, April 2015)President Obama's recent progressive initiatives - pursuing diplomacy with Iran, opening relations with Cuba, protecting undocumented immigrants, lifting the federal minimum wage, extending Medicaid benefits to millions of uninsured Americans, imposing tough regulations on coal - are facing furious Republican opposition on every front. That's why it's peculiar that he persists in pushing pro-corporate trade agreements over the objections of a majority of Democrats, unions and environmentalists.

      The trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic trade agreements (TPP and TTIP) are being negotiated in secrecy, presumably because they include elements of a corporate agenda that would be rejected if ever debated in public, according to the expert opinion of Lori Wallach of Public Citizens Global Trade Watch.

      One part of Obama's agenda is to promote export industries by breaking down labor, environmental and nationalist opposition to the spread of market-friendly trade rules. Democracy and sovereignty are seen as obstacles that must be weakened in the pursuit of an over-arching liberalization of markets. These notions have been discredited significantly since the 1999 "battle of Seattle" and the past decade of middle-class slump. That suggests that a decisive factor for the proposed Pacific trade agreement is Obama's strategic response to the expansion of China's power. But that objective is also in trouble, undermined by China's new multi-billion dollar Asian Infrastructure Bank which has 46 founding members, including America's closest allies  - the UK, France, Germany, Australia, and South Korea- over US objections. The NY Times quoted one Chinese finance official as saying, "Washington basically undermined itself by failing to allow a bigger voice for China in the World Bank and International Monetary Fund". (April 3) the US can't compete with China over funds for road, railroad and pipeline projects which China calls "the new Silk Road" between their country and Europe.

      The European trade pact being negotiated by Obama's team with European states also aligns him with the pro-austerity agenda embraced by his Republican foes at home. If he accuses Republicans of budget cuts that cause economic stagnation and leave millions at the mercy of the market, how can he endorse those policies abroad?

      What do Obama and the Democrats achieve from these policies? Campaign dollars? At what price in lost political support and mounting public confusion? What will Hillary Clinton do? Undermine her month-old populist campaign by supporting a trade deal that is bad for labor and "everyday Americans'? Remind them that her husband Bill brought NAFTA to working families? Or yield to the demand of Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, representing a crucial swing state, that she oppose the current deal?

      It seems unlikely, but Obama may wish to extricate himself from an inconvenient initiative, which is being trumped by China while it antagonizes his closest political allies. Perhaps Obama is caught in the passé politics of the Clinton era while trying to transition to a newer, more populist era with its emphasis on gross economic inequality. 

      If so, there's a possible way out. Building on the growing living wage movement at home, Obama might assert that the proposed trade deals hinge on acceptance of a global living wage. He might demand the end of fiery sweatshops, slave labor and workplace abuse of women and children. He might call for a new compact, one, which Newsweek called a "Global New Deal" a few years ago. He might call it an answer to austerity. It would be immensely popular and consistent with his new diplomatic initiatives abroad. If he wants to take on China and Big Business, he can call out the sweatshops where virtual slave labor makes our iPhones and iPads for Silicon Valley firms.

      Detailed blueprints for implementing a global living wage of ending sweatshops have been around for years. No one among the Western powers has been willing to challenge the neo-liberal model. Brazil comes closest among the developing countries with its policies a free education and a guarantee of raising all incomes over the poverty line (Brasil Sem Miseria or Brazil without destitution.) 

      Such an initiative would also buttress the president's crucial climate policy objectives in advance of the United Nations talks this December. The crucial issues in those intensifying talks are between the haves and have-nots, in which the former are the most responsible for carbon pollution and the latter are most battered by climate change and lacking in resources to mitigate the damage and finance a transition. In UN-speak, the key to a viable agreement is accepting a policy of "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR) among the rich and poor nations. That language appears in the UN Framework Convention (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997) that obliges the wealthy powers to assist developing countries technologically and financially. The recent Lima Summit affirmed this approach, but only after infighting that lasted 32 hours after the meeting was planned to end. 

      Since only 15 countries generate most global emissions, there can be no UN agreement to slash greenhouse gas emissions without an equitable sharing of the burden. Here too China is a major factor. The US and China cause forty percent of carbon emissions and have been taking tentative steps towards a global agreement in Paris. As Obama is imposing severe restrictions on coal-powered plants in the US, he could call on China to do more to reduce the lethal pollution in China's cities. (California air pollution experts already are collaborating with their Chinese counterparts.)

      Although China is beginning to take responsibility for its emissions, Obama still could constructively criticize China for violating workers' rights and causing an air pollution health crisis. Those are fair arguments in the context of peaceful competition. Surely such improved policies - a global Living Wage and Climate Justice - would be far saner than perpetuating global sweatshops and a New Cold War. 

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (3)

      The same groups that are most in favor of the TPP and are calling for its passage as a way to confront The People's Republic of China as that nation assumes its rightful place in this world, are the same groups who called for earlier trade deals with that nation which were clearly responsible for some of that growth which we are now supposed to fear.

      Is there no sense of shame or irony among these people and would someone please call them out on it, or is that being just too rude?

      April 29, 2015 | Unregistered Commentermichael nola

      Excellent analysis - Tom is still one of the smartest men around. I will definitely share this!

      May 14, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterTom Hayden

      The answer for why Obama would endorse such a trade deal, and the fast track authority to push it through without amendments or (and please don't laugh) suggested improvements from the public, is because he is a moderate corporatist who takes away with one hand quite often more than he has given with the other. As you recount, he has pursued some relatively progressive agendas recently, and this is simply his tried and proven modus operandi of now catering to corporate interests as a form of make up economic sex.

      As for the other groups pushing this deal, it must be pointed out, because it sure won't be by the mainstream media, that the same people saying we need this deal to counter the growing economic and military might of the PRC were the same people who 30 years ago were touting the very trade deals that made such growth possible, or at least more likely.

      Nice trick, that. Pursue policies 30 years ago that benefitted one group of corporations and then using the consequences of that decision to push trade deals that will further undermine the middle class and not so coincidentally, feed the MIC which will have just the weapons systems needed to counter America's next perceived enemy.

      May 20, 2015 | Unregistered Commentermichael nola
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.