There was an interesting back-and-forth on the Peru FTA between Reps. Blumenauer and DeFazio in The Oregonian last weekend.

http://www.oregonlive.com/elections/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1192245941100770.xml&coll=7&thispage=3#continue

I found it disturbing that Rep. Blumenauer was saying the Peru FTA should be used as a template for future trade deals, particularly in regards to labor standards. Unions in Oregon have opposed the Peru FTA. Even those at the international level who aren't actively fighting it have said they don't want it used as a template in the future.

Some Democrats get it--here's what DeFazio said in the Oregonian article last week: "Sooner or later the policymakers are going to wake up to the reality that the American people know, which is we are undermining the most successful system in the world, that brought the largest middle class in the world, with our trade policies. Unfortunately, a small percentage of Democrats and a large majority of Republicans are still blind to this because the corporations love what's happening." He also called the labor provisions that Blumenauer is so proud of "puny".

But the best quote on this stuff is from Tom Donahue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Congress. He has noted, “the labor provisions (in the Peru FTA) cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions." The language that Blumenauer says is so great won't actually help workers, it will only help the Bush administration siphon more votes from other Democrats.

Why? Ca Ching!!! That's why.

See Paul Krugman on Death of the Machine

The Oregon Working Families Party has sent the following letter to our Congressional delegation urging them to oppose the pending U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement and outlining the reasons it is a bad deal for Oregon and Peruvian working families.

The Working Families Party is determined to re-focus public policy in a manner that will improve economic security, job quality and community prosperity. The Peru FTA would unjustifiably add to the economic insecurity that existing free trade pacts have already caused Oregon’s working families, in addition to pushing many poor communities in Peru into even greater poverty.

Inadequate Labor Standards The new labor standards in the Peru FTA, while an improvement over some past trade agreements, are by no means adequate to prevent the offshoring of U.S. jobs or to protect Peruvian workers from severe exploitation. While these new provisions would require Peru to adopt the core labor rights outlined in the 1988 International Labor Organization Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, they also specifically allow dispute resolution panels to interpret and apply those rights differently than they have been interpreted and applied by the ILO itself.

As Tom Donahue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Congress, has noted, “the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions.” This is of major significance. The U.S. State Department has documented the widespread use of child labor in Peru; there are approximately 2.3 million child laborers at work in that nation. An additional 30,000 people in Peru, mainly indigenous peoples, are estimated to work as forced laborers. The detailed ILO Conventions are what really spell out what a ban on child and forced labor means in practice—not the much-more general, two pages of ILO Declarations. A wide range of unions active in Oregon, from the Teamsters to the Machinists to the SEIU, opposes the Peru FTA for this reason, among others.

Questions also remain about whether the new labor standards will actually be enforced. Unlike the investment chapter, which allows private parties to file complaints, the new labor provisions rely entirely upon the White House to initiate enforcement. Given the current administration’s failure to enforce domestic labor laws, we are uncomfortable with relying so heavily on the discretion of the President in this arena. Peru’s major labor confederations have likewise urged opposition to the FTA because they do not believe the Garcia administration will enforce the “supreme decrees” on labor their President has recently issued.

A Failed NAFTA Model Of additional concern are the many other chapters in the Peru FTA that repeat the exact same NAFTA provisions that have proven so harmful over the past decade-plus. Just like trade agreements before it, this FTA’s investment chapter will put U.S. environmental, food safety and other public interest protections in jeopardy of direct challenge by foreign investors in international tribunals; even U.S. court decisions could be overturned, as they have been in the past. The Peru FTA also continues the NAFTA ban on many anti-offshoring and “Buy Local” government procurement policies, and even contains some of the original NAFTA intellectual property provisions that undermine the rights of poor countries to use generic medicines.

Of particular concern are the agricultural provisions that will force Peru to remove most of its protections for domestic farmers, and thus face a flood of taxpayer-subsidized agricultural imports from the United States. Four million small-scale Peruvian farmers went on strike this summer to protest the impact that the FTA would have on rural communities there. Agriculture accounts for a third of all employment in Peru. Requiring Peru to unfairly compete with subsidized agricultural imports will push countless Peruvian farmers off the land, compounding problems with everything from urban poverty to undocumented immigration to the drug trade.

Past free trade agreements have been such a disaster for working people in Oregon and around the world that the time has come for Congress to take a step back, assess the effects of existing trade pacts, and develop a new model for international trade that benefits the majority of U.S. workers, farmers, small business owners and consumers, while promoting equitable development among our trading partners.

Please vote no on the Peru Free Trade Agreement and voice public opposition to the Bush administration’s other pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

Let me dissent. Some Democrats, like myself, support free trade because we believe it is helping to bring millions of people out of poverty all around the world. It is not without problems, especially of transitional adjustments. And I would admit that the American public is shifting against free trade, as the middle class disappears and we weary of foreign engagements. But our economic problems come largely from causes other than trade, and protectionist barriers will harms poor people in other countries and in the long run leave the US noncompetitive in the global economy.

As for the Peruvian free trade agreement, I've put some of my views into a diary title "Peruvians want the free trade agreement" on Loaded Orygun.

I think a larger vision of global social justice and bringing people out of poverty all over the globe, that is to say a "progressive" view, requires moving toward global free trade.

Dave,

I'm glad that you are altruistic, but free trade agreements do not have the effect you suggest. NAFTA, in particular, has taken away the livelihood of many Mexican farmers, forcing them to migrate to overcrowded cities or illegally to this country.

While we screw up work here and abroad, we are moving farther into a system that requires huge amounts of fossil fuel to move materials and products around the world, just as supply of such fuel is peaking. Of course, there is also the contribution of this fuelishness to global warming, which will impoverish millions. We are creating a tomb for mankind and your mistaken impressions have deadly consequences.

”Why would “good” Democrats turn their backs on both constituents and commonsense to help the Bush administration advance bad trade policy?”

Very simply, because both parties are beholding to the same big money corporate interests and there is no fundamental difference between them. They maintain the duopoly on power that serves their interests, not that of the American people.

They continue the charade of being different as a way to pit their party faithful against each other, desperately keeping any third party from getting a foothold in government.

Repub/Dem; the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Tom,

I do agree that small farmers in Mexico have suffered, but, as I understand their situation, this was not so much due to NAFTA but to the fact that they were not going to survive long term anyway and additional actions, not NAFTA, by the Mexican government made their situations more acute.

The Mexican situation is complex. For example, the article "Free Trade on Trial" says "The biggest pressure on emigration, in turn, is the crisis in the countryside. The traditional Mexican farmer had about eight hectares of his own land and some communal land for livestock. This made his family self-sufficient in everything from maize and beans to meat and milk. Even before NAFTA this traditional rural economy was disappearing, as demographic pressure caused the land to be subdivided, and many campesinos now eke out a living year by year, ever on the edge of disaster. “If the weather does not help us, we are completely lost,” says Dionisio Garcia, who farms a smallholding in the southern state of Tlaxcala.

"Most of Mr Garcia's colleagues have simply given up. He estimates that up to 90% of the heads of families in his area now spend at least six months of the year working in Canada or the United States. “What they earn there in four months, we don't earn here in a year,” he says. They are part of an estimated 1.3m people who have left the land since 1994. The young, besides, are no longer much interested in making a living from the land; they are going off to drive taxis in the city, or to sell air-conditioners."

Another article "Mexico pays a heavy price for imported corn" states "True, the peasant – many also indigenous persons – population dedicated to farming was protected by a 15-year transition period during which the workers not globally competitive were to be drawn from the countryside into maquiladora and other industry and services. Was 15 years too short to uproot and replant millions of households? We’ll never know, because, in draconian fashion, the Mexican government voluntarily lifted early some tariffs on basic grains." The article goes on to describe favoritism shown to agribusinesses in Mexico.

So I see a complex problem but not an indictment of phasing in free trade in corn.

Peruvians want the free trade agreement? Not the 4 million peasant farmers there who conducted a 48-hour strike last July to protest the pending Peru Free Trade Agreement. “We oppose the government’s policy of continuing to shower privileges on private investors while turning its back on campesinos,” said Antolin Huascar of the National Agrarian Confederation.

And Dave, if you think these agreements are merely about "protectionist barriers" you have not been keeping up with your homework.

I found the way to explain Representative Blumenauer's sudden support for the Peru Free Trade Agreement when after saying a few months back that he opposed it. It is the work of the Naegleria fowleri, an amoeba that enters one's body through the nose and proceeds to eat the brain. According to a recent Associated Press report, people who are in the latter stages of infection show signs of brain damage such as hallucinations and behavioral changes.

If nothing else, I feel better believing this than the ugly truth that Mr. Blumenauer is just a shill for corporate profit instead of what is good for people.

Why Are Democrats Supporting the Bush Trade Agenda?

Wait a second. This is all making sense now. Could it be? Maybe...It is the work of the Naegleria fowleri, an amoeba that enters one's body through the nose and proceeds to eat the brain. According to a recent Associated Press report, people who are in the latter stages of infection show signs of brain damage such as hallucinations and behavioral changes.

Dave,

We can throw articles about free trade back and forth without altering each other's opinion. On the matter of corn agriculture in Mexico, of course the situation is complex. Economics always is, but what I have read suggests that competition from US agribusiness has had a substantial negative effect on Mexican peasant farmers.

Consider this: The governments of developing countries that are progressive democracies, that is, operate to increase the welfare of the average person, are largely antagonistic to free trade agreements. Those governments that favor the wealthy class embrace free trade internationalism. I believe the same alignment holds in this country. Those in league with multi-nationals support free trade. Those who care about ordinary workers see the damage done by "free trade."

As to sustainability, globalism is doomed in the long run. How much human suffering is endured in the transition to an expensive energy economy will depend on what we do between now and when the heavy crude hits the fan. More free trade agreements means more suffering in the transition to the localized economies which will be the only affordable ones.

Why Are Democrats Supporting the Bush trade Agenda?

I'm at a loss here. Could it be the "Battered Wife Syndrome"? Have they been beat up so much by the right wing and 'The Decider' that they have become incapable to take action to stop the abuse? Seems like every time they get hit they say "thank you sir, can I have another?

Makes no sense to me. Granted that this trade agreement has some environmental and labor provisions but it is up to Peru to enforce them and if they don't is up to the Bush administration to call them on it. Not likely to happen.

These agreements do not help the poor of Peru but do benefit the multinational corporations. Instead of doing 'free trade' agreements we should work on 'fair trade' agreements.

For Dave and Tom, a few quotes from Rep. Blumenauer's own website are pasted below:

"We need to pay attention to the hard lessons NAFTA imposed on struggling Mexican farmers."

"Our egregious Farm Bill has locked us into subsidies that do not promote free trade and have already caused much harm to other countries’ farmers."

"Not only do agricultural subsidies hurt developing nations’ economies, but they also contribute to social and political problems. For example, subsidies play an indirect role in the global drug problem. By artificially lowering the world price of many goods in which developing nations have lower real production costs, subsidies have had the effect of encouraging the cultivation of coca and other illicit substances in the third world."

"For me, it is clear that CAFTA... Seriously harms countries that rely heavily on an agricultural economy. This is unfathomable."

The ag provisions in the Peru FTA are identical to those in NAFTA and CAFTA. In supporting the Peru FTA, Mr. Blumenauer points out that it will take 17 years for the ag tariff schedule to kick in completely. This is true, but a lion's share of the tariff reductions kick almost immediately.

For more info on NAFTA's impact on Mexico, attend the free public event on "Free Trade and Immigration" featuring Centolia Maldonado Vasquez, a Oaxacan community leader from the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations, this Wednesday, October 24th at 6:30 pm at Portland Carpenter's Hall (2215 N. Lombard).

Chris,

I too have read of the Peruvian protests, but then what to you make of the Gallup poll I cite on my Loaded Orygun diary that "Peruvians are very optimistic about this proposal. 38% said they were at least somewhat familiar with the FTA proposal, and, of that group, 78% said they believed their country would gains jobs because of the proposed FTA."

And more recently the Pew Research Center released an international poll (here) that found 81% of Peruvians had positive views of trade.

Dave--

Can you find out what questions the researchers asked for these polls? I looked at the Pew study, but was not able to find out what exactly they mean by "positive view of trade". It says "free market" in a few places, but I want to know what question they asked--was it "Do you think Peru should trade with other countries?" or was it "Do you support trade agreements that protect investors' rights over those of workers?" I bet you would get pretty different answers.

The other sources (President Garcia, the Peruvian Congress, de Soto) you mention to support your theory that Peruvians want the FTA don't do much to convince me, either.

If you can find a Human Rights, Labor or Environmental organization in Peru that supports the FTA, I'd like to see that.

Re Dave Porter's post of 4:41 PM, as to the second item, you have 45,000 people in 47 countries surveyed, so as an average, about 810 out of 1,000 Peruvians support trade. Which is very nice, but also meaningless. Similarly, take a poll as to how many people are opposed to war. I bet it is pretty high--in fact, at least in this country, and I suspect in Iraq as well, it is very high. Put something more substantive in there, a parameter, such as "Are you opposed to war even if it means you attacking some army that has invaded your country?" Most likely, the number drops.

What is there not to like about trade? I like trade. I like when I give my neighbor a jar of tomatoes, and he later gives me jelly. But do I like trade that demonstrably causes people to lose their jobs and forces people off the land (never mind that as with NAFTA, CAFTA, and PFTA these have nothing to do with trade)? No. And that is what a good question would ask: do you support trade agreements like NAFTA?

As to the Gallup poll, what I make of it is that of people that are at least somewhat familiar with the FTA proposal, about 30 out of every 100 Peruvians believe their country will gain jobs. Without getting into near meaninglessness about polls figuring out what people believe--God, angels, satan, unicorns; etc.--this is not a good number, only slightly above President Bush's recent poll number. It is also, last I checked, not a majority, and if this is how we talk about support for a piece of legislation that is about bringing democracy...well, it says a lot about what we think of democracy if this is a support of the FTA.

Chris,

Yes, of course, you would get different answers. The linked (above) Pew Global Attitudes page has a link to the complete report (1.9MB. pdf). In the back of that report are the questions used. I think the trade question is #20 worded "What do you think about the growing trade and business ties between Peru and other countries?" 18% very good, 63% somewhat good, 10% somewhat bad, 5% very bad,and 3% DK/refused. So, if your point is that it is not a poll on the free trade agreement itself, I agree. It is only what it is.

I tend to agree with Paul Klugman (here) that free trade agreements "although they make the United States as a whole richer, make tens of millions of Americans poorer. How much poorer? In the mid-1990s a number of economists, myself included, crunched the numbers and concluded that the depressing effects of imports on the wages of less-educated Americans were modest, not more than a few percent."

And agree with him on the issue of "Should we go back to old-fashioned protectionism? That would have ugly consequences: if America started restricting imports from the third world, other wealthy countries would follow suit, closing off poor nations’ access to world markets.

"Where would that leave Bangladesh, which is able to survive despite its desperate lack of resources only because it can export clothing and other labor-intensive products? Where would it leave India, where there is, at last, hope of an economic takeoff thanks to surging exports — exports that would be crippled if barriers to trade that have been dismantled over the past half century went back up?

"And where would it leave Mexico? Whatever you think of Nafta, undoing the agreement could all too easily have disastrous economic and political consequences south of the border."

And with him as he says "But if Democrats really want to help American workers, they’ll have to do it with a pro-labor policy that relies on better tools than trade policy."

This is not the Bush trade agenda. It is the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter trade agenda. Of course, they may all be corporate tools (but the Krugman edit is irrelevant--it has nothing to do with free trade), but unlike many, I'm not automatically anti-corporate. There are good corporations and bad corporations. There are good trade deals and bad trade deals.

Do you dislike details of the Peruvian pact, or do you hate all free trade pacts?

I'd sure hate the Democrat to become both the party of isolationism and the anti free trade party.

I am ready and willing to consider argument pro and anti free trade. I would not oppose an agreement just because it hurts local Oregon jobs--local Oregon jobs have been lost because we had a timber based economy. Do you really think it's better that we are shifting away from this basis for our economy?

Does globalization increase "uncertainty"? It think the answer is probably yes, because it subjects us to global market forces. The right question is ask is whether this increased uncertainty results in higher economic growth in our own country and in other countries.

The 90s were an awful good decade, it seems to me, and a large part of it was due to globalization.

Free trade has had the support of Democratic administrations since FDR. Contributions form international trade interests gave Democrats a financial base to compete with the financial support the the rest of the business community gave to Republicans.

It was not until the effects of NAFTA, GATT, and WTO were well known that progressives in large numbers began to question the advisability of these trade regimes. This has caused a problem for Democrats who are loathe to give up the financial support of international traders.

This is one of the many issues where Democratic grassroots pull in the direction opposite of traditional Democratic funders. Ask yourself why congressional Democrats are so loathe to challenge the Shrubbery on the Iraq occupation while Democratic voters are overwhelmingly for its end. Could contributions from military contractors, the pro-Israel lobby, and oil interests have something to do with it?

The trade deficit is approaching a trillion dollars a year. The U.S. dollar is in the toilet. Most people's wages have been stagnant for decades. The manufacturing sector is so damaged that this country can't even provide bullets for its wars.

There's NO question that our economic policy is on the wrong track. Anyone who thinks otherwise has spent too much time in grad school and not enough time working for a living. Even Alan Blinder -- former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, a Clinton "free trader" -- tells us that if we continue on our current course as many as 42 million U.S. jobs are vulnerable to offshoring. That makes the current damage done to our economy look like a drop in the bucket.

Politicians in both parties who side with the short-term interests of large corporate contributors over the long-term interests of the nation are responsible for this mess. We're responsible for continuing to elect them.

Hook,

I agree completely that out economic policies are on the wrong track. All the more reason to think clearly about how to remedy the situation. Becoming anti-free trade is the wrong remedy. It has two dangers. First, most economists would agree that anti-free trade policies will not work to improve our economy or remedy our growing income inequality. I put this in a wishful thinking category with supply side economics, and look where they have put us and the Republican Party. Democrats need economic policies that work. The second danger is the damage we would do to the world economy, especially to the poor in many developing countries.

As for Alan Binder, consider the following from Jagdish Bagwati's article "The free trade perspective lives on:"

"Alan Blinder, published an essay in Foreign Affairs (April 2006) that bought into the line that outsourcing of services via the internet would increasingly export American jobs to other countries and imperil the US and its working and middle classes. So he was now the new icon for the protectionists.

"But Mr. Blinder seemed unaware of the fact that outsourcing via the internet was the mode of service transactions that the US lobbies were keenest about in the Uruguay round of trade negotiations: they saw that they would be the big winners, as no doubt they are. They hugely dominate transactions in high-skill and high-value services in architecture, law, medicine, accounting and other professions.

"Mr. Blinder, when challenged, shifted ground to arguing that, as services became tradeable online, the number of jobs that would become “vulnerable” would rise pari passu, requiring adjustment assistance. However, there is hardly any serious trade economist who has objected to providing adjustment assistance. The first adjustment assistance program in the US goes back to 1962. Virtually all trade legislation since has tried to improve on it. Many trade economists have written extensively on the subject.

"Mr. Blinder, who started talking poetry, has therefore wound up talking prose. We free traders have no problem with him as he backs into our corner. But if he is to remain the new icon for those who oppose free trade, they have to be pretty desperate."

The contrived dichotomy between free trade and protectionism misses the point; the real choice is between free trade and fair trade. U. S. workers are not opposed to trade deals which raise world wages and working conditions to our levels, what we do oppose is the lowering of our standards to third world levels. There is no question that NAFTA et al were designed to favor capital over workers, nor is there any question that most D’s and the R’s collude with the moneyed class to that end. As far as I’m concerned, the only Democrats who have the back of the working class are Peter DeFazio and Dennis Kucinich. I have no faith in Senators Wyden, Clinton, and Obama. They will sell us out in a minute.

Thanks to Lenny Dee for launching this conversation. One additional point that I did not see mentioned as I quickly looked over the comments on Lenny's piece is that -- even if it works as projected -- "free trade" is hostile to the environment, and contributes mightily to climate change. With the exception of crops like bananas, coffee, chocolate, various raw materials, and craft products, "free trade" moves production to far away places, which requires a huge increase in shipping, the use of fossil fuels, and the release of large (and needless) amounts of greenhouse gases. In the last few years, I've taken five groups of teachers to Tijuana on Rethinking Schools-Global Exchange delegations. Each time, we tour maquiladoras. What do they produce? Wiring, TVs, sample books, curtain rods, toys, fire extinguishers, etc. Their "comparative advantage"? The minimum wage in Tijuana is $5 a day, there is not a single plant represented by an independent union, and there is almost no enforcement of environmental regulations. It's not even that jobs were "shipped to Mexico," because the jobs have been transformed by the time they hit places like Otay Mesa in Tijuana. This so called free trade may be great for corporations, but it benefits few people here, few people in Mexico, and is a disaster for the environment. Bluemenauer cannot continue to represent himself as a "green" politician if he continues to support free trade agreements.

Bruce Cronk,

I would add several of the Black urban congresspeople to your list of two, folks like Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee.

Dave Porter,

You have not addressed my comments about either global warming or peak oil, although both important issues are greatly effected by globalization promoted by free trade agreements.

Tom,

I am concerned about very global warming and the limited global supply of oil. I spend most of my advocacy time promoting more Mandarin in Oregon schools (See my website here), not on promoting free trade. As I view the world, China is key to solving both the global warming problem and transitioning to renewable energy sources (see the 4 minute Friedman youtube on my website here). Neither will improve without China. Our next generations cannot understand China, much less expect to influence them in these positive directions, when less than 1% of our students study Mandarin. So I have been advocating to the legislature and others that the most significant action Oregon could take for world peace (and toward solving the global warming and energy problems) is to increase the number of K-12 students studying Mandarin to 5% by 2015. So far, the governing party in Oregon, our Democrats, has had other priorities. Future historians will not treat them well if they continue to avoid the issue.

That said (and let us not get off on China in this thread), I think you are saying more free trade will require more transportation which will require more fuel which will create the gases that cause global warming. Perhaps, and I've not given this enough thought, but is the best policy tool to limit trade. I do not think so. The best tool is a carbon tax and to move as rapidly as possible to other, cleaner energy sources. Lacking the political will in the US for that, should we use tariffs and other trade restrictions to raise the cost of items we consume and to limit employment opportunities in developing countries? I don't think that make sense or is morally right.

Bill,

What do you see as alternatives to the maquiladora jobs that you saw in Otay Mesa? If the factories were not there, what would the people do? If there were unions and good environmental enforcement (which I would support) could the factories operate competitively? Just how do we improve the lives of the people living there? And does not free trade help?

Is it "free trade" to pressure developing countries to remove tariffs on agricultural products from the U.S. that receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and are thus sold on the international market for below what it actually costs farmers to grow them?

Is it "free trade" to remove U.S. tariffs on products imported from countries known to use forced labor and to violently surpress labor movements?

Is it "free trade" to allow private corporations to challenge U.S. environmental laws outside of the U.S. court system, while prohibiting private from initiating challenges when environmental treaties are broken?

Cause that's what in these "free trade agreements" that Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Wyden are helping the Bush administration to advance.

Dave,

I'd support your call for more teaching of foreign language - especially Chinese - and more international studies in general.

It is true that limiting free trade is not a direct route to slowing greenhouse gas emissions or using less oil. But I believe that almost any action is better than the almost zero action the US is now taking.

On the energy question, being proactive may be a matter of economic survival [as in not starving or freezing to death]. The farther we go toward globalized economy, the harder we will be hit when transportation fuel costs cause the system to crash. When a good part of needs come from other continents and we lose our ability to produce locally, a spike in energy costs will crush our economy. It will do the same in developing countries that are giving up subsistence economies to become exporters of goods. This is just the opposite of prudent preparation for the post-peak oil world. I see anything that strengthens local economies as positive, whether or not they are aimed at coping with expensive energy or not. There are times when unintended consequences are good consequences.

Though global warming is a separate issue from peak oil, both are impacted by increased transportation. The world's poor will suffer more from global warming than will the rest of us. Less resources means less ability to move or adapt in place. Drought, inundation of coastal areas, and stronger storms will spread misery around the globe.

Thanks again for posting this, Lenny. I had heard that Blue Oregon would not publish something like this. I'm relieved to see that's not the case.

And Dave--after all this discussion, are you still sticking with this: "Free trade is good and can make a better world. Free trade is good not just for corporations but for millions of poor people around the world. It should be the progressive position. Congressman Blumenauer has lots of good reasons to support the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement." (from Dave's Loaded Orygun piece)

Hook,

I would agree with you that US agricultural subsidies are bad and should end for reasons not related to trade. But if another country wants and gets lower cost food to feed its people, is that not usually good – more people able to feed themselves. I believe the US provides food aid around the world.

I would agree that forced labor and suppressing labor movements are bad. But I see trade with its attraction of investment, its creation of jobs, its raising of incomes, its eventually development of a middle class, and its opening up of societies to the values of the larger world, as the more effective route for eliminating forced labor and creating vibrant labor movements. Embargoes rarely work. Lesser restrictions on trade work even less. There are also other means of pressuring a nation to stop forced labor and to permit the growth of labor movements,

As for improving the environment, the best way improve the environment is to raise per capita income to levels where citizens begin to value the good environment. Poor countries have other priorities. Trade helps raise those income levels and is good. As for the procedural issues you raise, I am not familiar with them. I do think the rules of international trade, of globalization in general, are developing and evolving, generally for the better, over time.

Chris,

Yes, of course, I still think free trade should be the progressive position. It can make a better world.

And my thanks to Lenny too!

Dave,

I really don't believe today's so-called free trade agreements are about advancing "the free market" or any one economic theory of development. They're about doing whatever is profitable at the time for the transnational corporations pushing them (and, in many instances, actually writing them). Sometimes tariff reductions work for them. Other times government handouts work. There is no special theory behind this, except gimme, gimme, gimme. I often suspect the "free market" theory is just what the PR flacks and lobbiests use to sell the agreements -- b/c many of the provsions in these trade deals completely contradict free market theory.

Regarding whether or not developing countries benefit from tariff-free imports of U.S.-taxpayer subsidized food products: they don't benefit if it undercuts development of their own domestic agricultural sector.

Consumers will obviously benefit from the slightly-lower retail prices in the short run, but in developing countries like Peru, agriculture is a major employer. The massive unemployment and internal migration that results almost overnight when that sector is undercut can be devastating to the economy as a whole and compound all sorts of social problems (read things by OxFam and the Institute on Agriculture and Trade Policy for detailed descriptions of how this has worked in Mexico). And, of course, once the local farmers are out of business, the ADMs, Cargills and other large food suppliers are free to jack up the prices to what they were before or even higher.

I don't know whether this is an issue in Peru, but tariffs are also a major source of income for government coffers in many developing countries. In many developing countries, the majority of the population is involved in the "informal economy." Tariffs are in some ways an alternative to the income taxes we have here in the U.S. Get rid of them, and kiss goodbye to government programs.

Side discussion: I agree with you that poor countries often have other priorities above saving the environment, but disagree that simply raising per capita income is what it takes to advance environmental protection. Look at the U.S.: among the highest per capita income and among the highest per capita pollution.

Thanks to Lenny for launching all this. I hope BlueOregon will continue to cover trade debates.

A very important issue that doesn't get enough attention here. Great article!!! Thanks.