Few things in politics are more difficult to negotiate than international trade agreements. At the same time, few things at a fundamental level are more clearly liberal verses conservatives and few things that appear “on the street” followers of both political parties understand. As a true bleeding heart liberal, I support international trade agreements only if liberals are in control of writing the agreements. That has not happened in the entire history of the United States. In the past, multinational corporations have controlled the writing of these agreements, which is why they are so odious. Their usual objective is to allow business enterprises to use them to make money unfortunately in nefarious ways, which directly contributed to our international reputation that was so bad corporations had to invoke the military to enforce them. The results were devastating often resulting in small nations losing their sovereignty. At the risk of changing the focus of this post, as a historical note, I mention the industrial North approach to the agricultural South that is the Civil war. Stephen Kinzer documented a small number (14) of these events, only the tip of the iceberg, which resulted in forced changes in the administration of governments in his classic book, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (2006).
Before Barrack Obama became president. I had no idea he would pursue a course in international trade agreements in keeping with my philosophy. I knew my idea were not tenable in the modern world of American politics dominated by greed, greed, and more greed. The trade agreements were always one-sided in our favor. The agreement invariably allowed our corporations unfettered access to natural resource of other countries but also give them the power to set the price they would pay for those resources. Corporations expanded this—as if this was their right—to include the use of their labor forces and suppress wage rates, allow spillage of high volume and toxic waste to contaminate their environments.
I look at international trade agreement as a way of distributing our success. The United States is a massive and well-financed market. Somehow, and in error, our ego refuses to allow us to see the world as a market for our goods. If, for example, the executives of our multinational corporations chose to increase the distribution of our (their) wealth, and pay a fair price for natural resources, protect environments, and pay increased wages, they could increase the welfare of the world. Obviously, this would increase the value of the rest of the world for us as a market place. Of courses, “bottom line driven”, Harvard or any other business school trained MBA, have proven repeatedly both within our international boundaries as well as outside our boarders, but especially outside our boarder, they operate only with a self-centered sense of greed and with no sense of morality—zero. They seem to be unable to see the value of money cycling the other way that is from us to them. Certain restraints that play a role within the United States do not apply outside our boundaries; labor unions, occupational safety, concern for the environment, climate change worry, etc. Keeping the costs of these things at or near zero is the driving force, pushing corporations to write these agreements.
Reread that one highlighted sentence written above, “the executives of our multinational corporations chose to increase the distribution of our (their) wealth, and pay a fair price for natural resources, protect environments, and pay increased wages, they could increase the welfare of the world”. President Obama understands this. The rightwing republicans seem repulsed by the idea of helping anyone even if it ultimately helps them. Charles Krauthammer, in his book, Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passion, Pastimes, and Politics (2013), unabashedly explains the intellectual driving force for conservative desire to have international dominance. Foreign powers will best deal with us because they have too, and if they have to deal with our corporations, those corporation will write trade agreements that will maximize their profits; greed driven diplomacy. All very simple, diplomacy makes corporations money, lots, and lots of money. President Obama is trying to change that.
I believe this as the reason we see this strange arrangement between conservatives who are strongly supporting Presidents Obama’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and Democrats, who are as deadly opposed to TPP. Business interests see it as and opportunity to make more money, to increase foreign business opportunities, and to increase the availability of less expensive goods, which it is certain to do.
They will do everything in their powers to write an agreement that will favor them in this regard. Labor unions fear the agreement will ship jobs overseas, because it will. Not only that, but it will suppress wages at home. This is a tough thing for workers to swallow. The important thing for people like President Obama, in the end we and the rest of the world will benefit far more than it will cost.
According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative:
“When complete, TPP will unlock opportunities for American workers, families, businesses, farmers, and ranchers by providing increased access to some of the fastest growing markets in the world.”
“TPP will provide . . . strong and enforceable labor standards and environmental commitments, groundbreaking new rules on state-owned enterprises . . .”.
I sincerely believe that will happen. The time to start the process is with a great president at the helm. President is not only a great President he is a great man who some day will stand with the giants in world history. As with his not boots on the ground policy, he is willing to pay the price in popularity to do what is right for his fellow man.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
No comments:
Post a Comment