Trading Up for Jobs

by John Murphy

Here is our plan to double exports in the next five years and here is a spot on commentary from James Bacchus, intro and three clips:

President Obama has promised to create 2 million new jobs by doubling exports from $1 trillion to $2 trillion during the next five years.

...To keep his word he needs more than an export initiative--he needs an overall trade strategy. This strategy must include much more than merely export promotion.

...By far the best way to open more markets is through more trade agreements. Negotiating more trade agreements must be a higher priority for Obama going forward than it was during his first year in office.

No one else will negotiate new trade agreements with us unless and until we approve our three pending free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Why would they bother when we can't muster the political gumption to confront protectionist interests and go ahead with job-producing agreements with three of our leading trading partners?

The President and most members of Congress recognize the benefits of trade and the jobs created by exports so why is it so hard to get moving? Pull up a chair.

The U.S. debate over trade policy is often dominated by the question of the appropriate relationship between U.S. trade policy and respect for labor rights abroad. Indeed, the first bilateral free-trade agreement (FTA) negotiated by the United States (concluded in 1986 with Israel) made no mention of labor issues, the U.S. approach has evolved considerably since that time.  A foundation was established in the NAFTA, U.S.-Jordan, and CAFTA-DR agreements, and building on this foundation, the Bush Administration and Congressional leaders on May 10, 2007, reached a bipartisan accord on a new approach to labor and environmental issues in trade agreements. This accord led to changes in the text of pending trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.  It also paved the way for Congressional approval of the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement in late 2007 with broad bipartisan support. 

The "May 10th trade deal" represents an elegant compromise that has attracted bipartisan support. It is troubling however that the deal has failed to advance a bipartisan trade agenda. Just weeks after they applauded the agreement for realizing long sought goals relating to labor rights, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives and the AFL-CIO announced they would oppose the "flawed trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia."  Further, in May 2009, the AFL-CIO’s Thea Lee testified in opposition to the U.S.-Panama FTA even though which includes the very changes the AFL-CIO sought and won in the May 10th agreement. Her critique called for a host of new, deep changes to the agreement—changes to the trade agreement "template," she said. Panamanian officials were stunned. Noting that Panama has ratified all eight of the ILO core conventions and has labor laws that elicit only minor criticisms from House Democrats, they commented at the time: "This isn’t just moving the goal posts. This is moving the entire stadium." The Colombians expressed a similar sentiment after the House refused to allow a vote on the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement in April 2008.

And so U.S. trade policy remains at an impasse. The Obama Administration has indicated repeatedly that it hopes to secure Congressional approval of the pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and Korea, but no action is forthcoming. If Washington continues to delay, American workers and farmers will be put at a competitive disadvantage in Colombia and Korea. For example, Canadian wheat farmers will be able to sell their crop to Colombians at a huge discount, and European manufacturers will easily undercut their American competitors in the Korean market.

According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), there are 230 free trade agreements in force around the globe today, but the United States has FTAs with just 17 countries. The WTO reports that there are more than 100 bilateral and regional trade agreements currently under negotiations among our trading partners. The United States is participating in just one of these (the Trans-Pacific Partnership). We are standing still, and we are falling behind.

Congress and the Obama Administration need to seek a more effective trade policy that opens foreign markets, boosts exports, and creates jobs. A bipartisan approach to addressing labor principles in U.S. trade agreements was achieved in the "May 10th trade deal," and it should be seized with both hands. Only by doing so can we take advantage of the opportunities trade presents for job creation.

Comments

[Joe Johnson]

Wake up....free trade hasn't made made the U.S. economically stronger....only weaker.
Neoliberalism is a failure.
The only purpose for free trade is to be able to exploit cheaper foreign labor and maximize profit for multinational corpportations. It means lower wages and more job losses for U.S. workers.
Your true aim is a one world economy and government controlled by the corporate rich.

[ChamberPost]

Jeff - The answer to addressing protectionist measures in other countries is not to adopt more protectionist measures ourselves. As the world's largest exporter getting into a tit-for-tat trade war is not to our benefit. And as for trusting our trade negotiations to the economic acumen of union and labor leaders, you are surely joking. (BP)

[Jeff]

Those trade agreements the United States enters into must be as mercantilist, restrictive and protective to our domestic markets as some of the ones we are in now with other countries.

If other countries can still have trade barriers,manipulate their currency, impose VAT taxes and quotas, why cant we?

We also need to keep corporate lawyers representing multinationals out of trade negotiations and allow more U.S. union and labor leaders into them to represent American workers.