<div class="resizeFont">
<div class="articleHeader">
<h2 style><span style="font-weight:normal"><font><a href="http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/204582681.html">http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/204582681.html</a></font></span><br></h2><h2 style>
Trade pact with E.U. may not be best</h2>
<ul class="HeadingDetails"><li class="first">
Article by:
JOSH WISE
</li><li class="updatedBy">Updated: April 24, 2013 - 8:53 PM</li></ul>
<p class="headingIntro" style>Agreements like that being negotiated between the U.S. and E.U. are really the work of lobbyists.</p>
</div><p><strong><em>Counterpoint</em></strong></p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/203691031.html"><u>April 19 editorial</u></a>
(“U.S.-E.U. trade pact would bring benefits”) deserves a rebuttal.
Until the flawed process of trade negotiations is addressed, so-called
“free-trade agreements” are going to continue to be a tool for
multinational corporations to further deregulate themselves and
hamstring local governments and communities in protecting their quality
of life.</p>
<p>Trade treaties are negotiated by the Office of
the United States Trade Representative, which is headed by a diplomat
and is part of the executive office of the president. This agency has
the power to keep negotiations classified. That means that the public,
the media and even Congress cannot see what is being negotiated in the
name of the American people until the treaty text has been finalized.</p>
<p>However, those who lobby the executive branch may
be named “cleared advisers” and have access to parts of the negotiating
texts. In current negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, there
are more than 600 listed advisers, more than 90 percent of whom
represent corporate interests.</p>
<p>Additionally, every major trade agreement since
the time of the Nixon administration has been accompanied by what is
know as trade promotion or fast-track authority, under which Congress
abdicates its constitutional responsibility to regulate international
trade by guaranteeing that it will not amend a treaty once the president
has signed it and that it will vote on the treaty within 90 days of
receiving it. It is important to remember that once these agreements are
signed, they become the law of the land.</p>
<p>What we have is an alternative system in which
laws literally are written by lobbyists in secret, with our elected
representatives having little to no chance for input.</p>
<p>It should be no surprise that these treaties have
served to benefit the people who wrote them. The terms “market access”
and “barriers to trade” are often thrown about without really being
unpacked. They should be understood.</p>
<p>Lowering barriers to trade means deregulation, be
it environmental regulation, food-safety regulation or, of course,
labor standards. The classic example is “country of origin” labeling for
food.</p>
<p>The World Trade Organization (WTO) has decided,
via a trade tribunal, that you and I as consumers do not have the right
to know if our meat comes from Mexico or China or wherever, because just
the fact that we know discriminates against foreign producers.
Ominously, both the United States and the United Kingdom want to
eliminate barriers to trade in the financial sector, which likely means
further deregulating the banks that caused the Great Recession.</p>
<p>When you hear “market access,” what should come
to your mind is privatization. Ever since the Central America Free Trade
Agreement, government procurement — how our tax money is spent — has
had its own chapter in bilateral agreements, as well as under the WTO.</p>
<p>What these chapters have done is to force
governments to open their public services to private bidders, in
addition to setting restrictions on what local governments can require
as standards for bids on public contracts.</p>
<p>Indeed, the E.U. was the primary driver for
requiring state and local governments in the United States to be bound
by the failed expansion of the General Agreement on Trade and Services.
This would have effectively banned prevailing wage and “buy
local”policies.</p>
<p>Of course, there’s the claim that more trade
equals more jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the United
States lost nearly 700,000 jobs to NAFTA and more than 2 million to
permanent normal trade relations with China. That’s <span class="Text_Italic">net </span>jobs, meaning it takes account of any jobs that may have been created from exports.</p>
<p>So, if trade talks with the E.U. can be done
through a transparent process that allows the public to have real input
and sets high standards for global quality of life — then great! But I’m
not optimistic.</p>
<p>Until we can break the corporate stranglehold on
trade treaty negotiations, then regardless of who is in the White House
or Congress, these deals are only going to continue the global race to
the bottom for wages, the environment and consumers.</p>
<p>---------------------</p>
<p>Josh Wise is director of the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition.</p>
<br></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Josh Wise<br><div><div>MN Fair Trade Coalition</div><div>952-818-5474</div><div><a href="mailto:josh@citizenstrade.org" target="_blank">josh@citizenstrade.org</a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.mnfairtradecoalition.org" target="_blank">www.mnfairtradecoalition.org</a></div></div>