Will Democrats Follow John Edwards On Trade--And Win Elections?

Aside from the Iraq war, nothing is more important in this election than where the next president will stand on how the rules will be set in the economy, particularly when it comes to trade. There is no greater threat to average Americans--a greater threat than the budget deficit, or the admittedly awful sub-prime mortgage scandal--than the imposition of so-called "free trade" regimes on our workers and workers around the world. Over the weekend, John Edwards took another step towards cementing his opposition to so-called "free trade."

On Saturday, he announced his opposition to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru:

Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.

For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO in 1995, promising in each case that they would create millions of new jobs and trade surpluses. Instead, since these agreements were put into place we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages decline, and storied U.S. firms close - and towns all over this country have been devastated. And we have run up larger and larger trade deficits. This irresponsible squandering of our national wealth now makes it increasingly difficult for us to control our own destiny.

NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well. But it absolutely hasn't served the interests of regular workers in any of the three countries. When NAFTA was passed, the American people were promised that by 2006 U.S. exports to Mexico would exceed Mexican imports by $10 billion. But right now, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs later, Mexican imports are $70 billion more than U.S. exports to Mexico. And Mexican workers have lost too - average wages for Mexican workers have declined since NAFTA was passed.

Pay attention, in particular, to Edwards' description of NAFTA:

NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well.

That is precisely right. There is no such thing as so-called "free trade." It is just a marketing phrase. We have always had trade among people around the global as long as humans have communicated with each other. The only question is: what are the rules under which trade takes place? It has nothing to do with being "free"--this is about establishing power.

Edwards is also quite sensitive, throughout his statement to the fate of workers outside of our country. This is so crucial to hear from a presidential candidate--if we are to repair our relations with other countries, one critical step the next president must take is to cease imposing on other countries economic systems that are crippling to the livelihoods and economic security of other people. Take this example in Edwards' statement:

The damage threatened by these NAFTA expansion agreements extends beyond the United States. Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization. That's right, the Peru FTA could lock in the misery facing millions of the elderly and ill in that extremely poor country all to ensure U.S. firms can profit on what should be a government service available to all in the first place.

Edwards opposition to so-called "free trade" is not new. Back in August, he made a very clear statement about trade and took a very big swing at corporate insiders.

Edwards set forth four principles on trade that I think are a very solid guide for our party:

First, our multilateral and bilateral trade deals and unilateral trade preferences must help America. They must benefit American workers and their communities. This means they must: stick to trade and not meddle with our domestic Buy America laws, our nation's investment policies, and our food safety and health laws; have at their core strong protections for the global environment and basic labor standards, such as prohibiting sweatshops and child labor and protecting the right of workers to join unions; and include prohibitions against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation and other trade cheating of the sort that is in fact encouraged under most of our current trade deals.

Second, our trade policies must also lift up workers around the world. Making sure that workers around the globe are treated fairly and share in the gains of trade is the right thing to do morally, it's the right thing to do economically, and it will make us here in America safer and more secure. We can never again condone trade agreements with countries where there is violence against workers or they are denied just wages and working conditions.

Third, we must understand in negotiating trade agreements that "one size does not fit all". We need to be realistic about global differences in form of government, in the rule of law, in the relative state of countries' economies, and in the day-to-day trade and business practices of potential trading partners. How utterly foolish is it that we treat China with its massive controlled and manipulated economy, Mexico with its porous three thousand mile-long border with the U.S., and developing countries in South America and Africa, as all the same when it comes to trade?

Fourth, our trade deals must be fairly and fully administered. For free trade to be fair, it must be based on rules, and then those rules must be followed. The top prosecutors at the Department of Justice should be responsible for enforcing our trade agreements, and when I am president I will insist that they prosecute all cases of illegal foreign subsidies, currency manipulation, and unfair trade practices.

Aside from the ethical and moral opposition to so-called "free trade," Edwards is making a very smart political choice for the Democratic Party. I recently pointed out a nationwide poll that showed that a majority of REPUBLICAN voters oppose so-called "free trade." Do we need to put flashing lights on that fact for those Democratic Party leaders who would still prefer to side with the corporate insiders, as opposed to the voters?

My biggest hope is that Edwards' statement draws similar positions from the other presidential candidates, and the leadership of the Democratic Party. The Wall Street Journal noted, not to long ago, that Edwards is dictating the debate in the Democratic party. For the sake of millions of workers here and abroad, I hope his statement on the Peru agreement is another example where the rest of the Democratic field will follow. We have to put aside our personal support for candidates and urge all candidates to understand the dangers of so-called "free trade" and call on them to pledge that, if elected president, they will adopt the principles Edwards articulates on trade.