I was just going to spend a nice Sunday just reading, and not blogging and even avoiding the computer but leave it to The New York Times to mess all that up. As I flipped the page, tucked neatly in the lower part of the next page was an article that warned all those unsuspecting moms and pops that on this toasty weekend you just have to fear for the lives of your children because the protectionists are loose -- again!!!
The article reports on a dispute between House Democrats and the administration on the terms of the deal struck in May on trade. The upshot of the deal: the administration agreed to include labor and environmental provisions in so-called "free trade" deals (by the way, we've yet to see the actual language of those provisions). The administration is bent out of shape because Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and Sander Levin (who chairs the Ways and Means subcomittee on trade) have decided to take a trip in August to Peru and Panama to get those countries to agree to implement the protections before Democrats votes on the so-called "free trade" deals.
You can read the details of the dispute yourself. What struck me was this sentence:
With protectionist sentiment fairly high in Congress, it has become harder in recent years to get any trade deals passed.
Now, c'mon: when are these reporters ever going to stop promoting this idiotic framework (okay, I can hear the chorus, "NEVER!!!"). I think the deal is not a great one for Democrats to have their name on and way back when I urged Rangel not to get caught into this kind of horse trading. But, the real point, and the one I think we should continue to emphasize, is that what's important is to change the framing of this debate.
It is not about "protectionism" nor about so-called "free trade." The question is: what are the rules? Right now, trade deals are structured primarily around the interests of capital and investment. And, with all due respect to Rangel, his deal with the administration barely scratches the surface. In fact, I've never believed that side agreements on labor and the environment will change much (because they are almost impossible to enforce) until the very nature of these deals are changed.
The real challenge is to scrap the NAFTA-style trade deals. The only way to do that is to start with a blank page and start with the following premise: trade is about trying to improve the standard of living of communities. When you answer that premise, then, labor rights and the environment are addressed as fundamental pillars of any agreement -- not grafted on as an after thought. And, then, and only then, would we ask the question -- how do corporations help society reach that goal?