Edwards Opposes Peru Free Trade Deal: Trade Policies Must Benefit Workers-Not Just Corporate Profit

Elizabeth's remarks on the Peru FTA while in NH today (4.00 / 2)

While in NH today, Elizabeth said the below regarding the Peru Free Trade Agreement:

Elizabeth Edwards Finishes Two-Day Campaign Swing Through New Hampshire, Discusses John Edwards' Opposition to U.S.-Peru Trade Deal
Oct 27, 2007 4:52 PM

Tomorrow, Elizabeth Will be Joined in NH by Senator Edwards and Their Children, Jack and Emma Claire

Manchester, N.H. - Elizabeth Edwards finished a two-day campaign swing through New Hampshire today with a canvassing kickoff with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, house parties in Hampstead in Nashua, and a town hall in Hanover.

Speaking with the Carpenters in Manchester, Elizabeth discussed John Edwards' opposition to the U.S.-Peru free-trade deal.

"From Berlin to Groveton, working men and women in New Hampshire have seen firsthand the disastrous consequences of short-sighted trade deals that put corporate profits above American workers," said Elizabeth. "As president, the first question John will ask about any trade deal is 'Is this good for American workers?' John will implement smart and safe trade policies that put working families first."

---

by: NCDem Amy @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 22:06:14 PM CDT

Dodd on Trade-- (0.00 / 0)

Chris Dodd's position on trade with foreign countries is rather sketchy:

Enforce Trade Laws at Home and Abroad. Chris Dodd will insist that every trade agreement America enters into is fair, by ensuring that workers in those countries are guaranteed fair wages, fair working conditions, and strong environmental protections. Above all, Dodd will insist U.S. trading partners open their markets to American products.

But, the problem I see is that much of the focus on developing trade with other countries has been directed at facilitating the transfer of U.S. enterprise into foreign climes for the purpose of accessing the natural resources, including the working population, to lower production costs.  Whether these adventures actually increase profits for the corporate owners is dubious because the financing and transaction and transportation costs are so much larger (many more layers of middle men are taking a "cut").

What I would want to see is that corporations that want to do business as U.S. corporations actually be registered as corporations in the U.S. (not in some off-shore mail-drop) and that, in return for being recognized as a U.S. corporation, they should be expected to comply with ALL the labor, safety, tax and environmental standards and regulations they are subject to at home, regardless of their foreign locale of operation.

In other words, I'd expect Bechtel to pay exactly the same wages in New Delhi as it does in Spring City, Tennessee.

You know, "equal pay for equal work."

---

by: hannah @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:44:23 AM CDT

This doesn't make any sense (0.00 / 0)

Your program of extraterritorial application of the law has a huge federalism issue.  Under your system, as an American citizen (or corporation or whatever) resident in New Hampshire, would I be subject to New Hampshire's regulations when abroad or just federal regulations? And what happens when there's a conflict of laws in the foreign jurisdiction with the US law? Would you put me in a position to be damned if I do, damned if I don't?

Other than that, you're saying Americans shouldn't compete abroad at all. Fair competition means everybody in a jurisdiction is subject to the same laws. Americans would never be able to compete in New Delhi or anywhere else if they weren't able to act according to the same legal and economic conditions as everyone else.

Additionally, you're quite wrong about what corporations doing business in the US have to do. If you want to do business in the US, you have to be registered in the US. You need to access the court system, the banking system -- you might need to hire employees. If you're doing business in the US, you have to be registered in the US. You need a tax id number from the Treasury Dept. to do just about anything.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 14:23:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, let's look at it this way. (0.00 / 0)

The U.S. has insisted that it need not join the International Court because our own laws are sufficient, if not better than others, to assure good behavior.
If that's a well-founded position, why would it not be proper to regulate corporate behavior, regardless of where their operations are?

Do we have different rules for baseball played in Japan or basketball played in Italy? 

---

by: hannah @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 17:44:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That analogy is unfair (0.00 / 0)

For ball and stick games, are the rules for cricket in the Commonwealth of Nations different from the rules of baseball in the Americas? Yes, of course they are. Asking an American team playing cricket in New Zealand to play by MLB baseball rules wouldn't make much sense.

The countries where you're operating impose the rulesets. Your subject to the laws of the place you're at. And that's true of corporations or other US nationals.

As far as the "International Court", I don't know what specifically you're referring to, but I imagine you're talking about the International Criminal Court, because we sometimes do recognize the International Court of Justice for some cases. The reason being, that we're a sovereign country and we get to decide which international treaties to be a part of, because we ultimately decide what happens within our borders.

What you're saying is that we get to regulate what happens inside other people's borders.

This is a practice imperial powers at the end of the nineteenth century knew quite well. For instance, one element of dispute in the Sino-British Opium Wars was whether or not British sailors were subject to Chinese laws when in China. As I recall, in the Treaty of Nanjing, China conceded that Brits were subject only to British law, where otherwise they would only be subject to Chinese law. What your proposing is a form of that, except American businesses would be subject to both foreign laws and some subset of US laws (whether state + federal, or just federal).

If you want to keep your baseball analogy, you should be suggesting that all business practice be regulated by a new sort of supernational (as opposed to supranational) international body and not subject to the will of nations at all. But I think you would be as uncomfortable with that suggestion as I, or probably the great majority of people, would be.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 17:58:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Catchy slogan-- (4.00 / 1)

We cannot trade Corporate Republicans for Corporate Democrats.

Is a catchy slogan, but misleading and confusing.  What's a corporate Democrat?  Is it a person who's part of a corporation and votes for Democratic representatives?  Is it an incorporated group that runs its enterprise in a democratic manner?  Is it an elected official who gives preference to democratic (bottom up) organizations?  If so, why would we want to trade him, or not?  And for what? 

A trade involves giving one thing and taking something very different back.  An exchange involves a transfer of very similar things. So, in this case, Edwards probably means that we shouldn't just exchange representatives with the same perspective, carrying a different label.

And then, what does he have against corporations?  Every town, city and state is a corporation?  That's how we get things done, by co-operating--i.e. working together.  That some corporations are engaged in endeavors that injure rather than help (predatory lenders and vulture financiers) doesn't mean the solution lies in getting rid of them all.

Of course, I don't think that's Edwards' intent.  But, murky language suggests murky thoughts. 

*******************************
Just noticed--

Edwards will make top prosecutors at the Department of Justice responsible for enforcing trade agreements

That's not possible.  Voluntary agreements can't be transformed into crimes.  If the terms of an agreement are broken, then the remedy is to declare the agreement null and void and withdraw the benefits that cemented the deal.  If my terms of incorporations were the law, then corporations found to be out of compliance with the wage and safety provisions would have their charters voided.
That which the state giveth, the state can take away.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:15:40 AM CDT

corporate (0.00 / 0)

This is somehting that has been bugging me for a while.  Corporations are just legal entities; their actions are determined by real people who are the officers, directors or shareholders. Blaming corporations for all the ills of the world lets the people behind the actions off the hook - "It wasn't me, it was the Corporation." 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:28:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily. There's more to the story (0.00 / 0)

Ever heard of corporate personhood? Corporations are granted the same kinds of rights as we the people and let me tell you why. Corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

IMO, corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

I can't tell you how many times corporations are granted "their" rights over those of citizens. Small towns fight like hell to prevent a nulcear power plant from going up, a hog farm going into operation, or Monsanto suing farmers because their technology accidently contaminated a farmer's field (See Percy Schmeiser) Stuff like this happens all the time and lawyers are good at making their case that they deserve the same rights as people and this IMO is how corporations can get away with a lot of havoc they wrought on small communities.

Air America radio host Thom Hartmann goes into this in better detail that I, but that pretty much is a synopsis. 

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:37:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's just scare mongering (0.00 / 0)

Corporate personhood allows a group of people to organize capital into a corporation under the same rules that would apply if they were a sole proprietorship. It allows a group of people to act as one body (corporation, form corpus).

If we need $20 to set up a lemonade stand, and I have $5, and you have $5 dollars, and 10 other people have $1, we can set up a vehicle to do something together weighted against our financial stake in the enterprise. The corporation sets up rules along quasi-democratic principles to ease the employment of a group of people's money for a common goal.

If our competitor, Joe Shmoe, has $20 and can just set up his lemonade stand by himself, he should enjoy special rights that we shouldn't have as a group of people?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 13:52:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Scaremongering is innaccurate (0.00 / 0)

I took two Daniel E. Pennock seminars and scaremongering is not what it's all about. Corporations are not living, walking, breathing beings. The Bill of Rights was meant for American citizens. Are corporations American citizens? Are they living, walking, breathing beings? More importantly, where in the Constitution do you see the word corporation? If not, then why should they have the right to take over and abuse small town communities with their business practices? This focus has breathed new life into citizen activism and has brought together people from all kinds of political persuasions and it's working!

This approach has empowered citizens all over the country in fighting corporations from inflicting harm on local communities. This approach has worked in Pennsylvania townships stopping hog farms from dumping raw sewage in their waterways. It's also a model being used in Hinsdale, NH to prevent an incinerator from being built. So far it seems to be working. The incinerator is no closer to getting its go ahead from the town and town officials are warming up to the idea.

Most of all, it's a much more effective citizen tool to stopping environmental destruction. Instead of regulating corporations and their environmental impacts (which merely slows environmental destruction down not NOT stop it).

OK. Obviously we're digressing here but my point is, it's not scaremongering. It's empowering citizens to take on corporations and have a fair battle in the courts. To learn more about this aprroach to corporate personhood read this. I'm sure you'll find it interesting and informative and it will explain it a lot better than I can.

Sorry to go off topic from this diary, but I felt compelled to respond.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 16:07:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The idea (4.00 / 1)

that one would equate a natural person with a legal person to invoke some idea about 'evil corporations' designed to inflame emotions without due consideration for the purpose of concept of corporate personhood strikes me as scare mongering.

Do you think corporations shouldn't have standing in court? Do you think corporations shouldn't be able to have bank accounts? That's what corporate personhood permits. A corporation is just a government-recognized group of natural persons (not necessarily citizens, I don't know what being a citizen should have to do with being able to do business or being afforded rights under the Constitution) treated as one person for the purpose of doing business.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 16:15:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

groan (4.00 / 1)

Yes, I know about that - I'm a lawyer.  You are reading way too much into the legal treatment of entities established for the prupose of pooling assets or investments. Under your theory, for example, a corporation would not be able to enter into contracts because it is not a person and therefore not entitled to any legal rights, which would make doing business pretty difficult.  Under your theory, a non-profit corporation like the YWCA would not be entitled to constitutional due process rights of notice and hearing if, for example, the state decided to take a piece of property owned by the YWCA. It isn't the fact that a corporation is a corporation that may lead a company to engage in bad acts; it is the people who run the company who decide whether the company will or will not engage in bad acts. 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 16:13:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To add, (4.00 / 1)

there's nothing that really prevents an 'unorganized' sole proprietor from engaging in the very same 'bad acts' as one of these apparently evil corporations.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 16:19:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Still (0.00 / 0)

in Vermont in the '90s, supermarkets labelled milk with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rgbh). When you went to the dairy case, dairy products that may have the hormone had blue plastic over the price label. Dairy products without it were clear. The companies that used rgbh sued to have this labelling removed and won in the state court because a judge declared part of freedom of speech was the right NOT to reveal what you don't want to reveal. The constitutional right of freedom of speech and this convoluted interpretation went to the benefit of the corporations using the hormoned milk.

Where is the freedom of people to choose to buy dairy products  without recombinant bovine growth hormone if they can't even easily find out which products have it?

This interpretation of corporate "personhood" is used all too often to the detriment of citizens. There can be other ways to allow corporations to do the legitimate things they need to do without infringing on the rights of others.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 17:10:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What if the dairy farmer/bottler (0.00 / 0)

was not a corporation but an individual and committed the same practice? You would have the same problem. Corporate personhood has nothing to do with it. You don't need to be a corporation to do business, and corporations aren't a sort of business organization inherently any more or less evil than other types of business organization.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 17:44:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The whole story (4.00 / 1)

IIRC, there was some issue at the federal level over whether the FDA considered rgbh an additative; that fact had something to do with the free speech argument of forcing the producers to label their products. In any event, Vermont cured the problem by passing legislation allowing dairies to voluntarily label their products as rgbh free - so people had the freedom to buy the rgbh free product. But Gallichon's point is well taken - a sole proprietor could have sued.  The issue isn't the form of the entity, it is the actions of the people making decisions or investing in the activity. 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 19:36:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Abstraction (0.00 / 0)

These arguments are correct factually perhaps, but are abstractions. I can't name one regional dairy distributer that is a sole proprietorship. Because an individual could have sued is a red herring. These kinds of suits are very expensive, and only entities with deep pockets such as corporations can mount them.

One argument I can accept is that under current legal practice, corporations can not only sue, but can be sued.

One also doesn't have to be a pop psychologist to know that people act differently as part of a group than as individuals. While the acts of a corporation are technically the acts of individuals, they  are acting on behalf of the corporate entity, ostensibly, not themselves. Corporations have duties to their shareholders, the main one being maximizing profits. I'm sure certain decdion makers have done things on behalf of the corporation that they would not do as  individuals.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:07:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democracy vs. corporation rights: Please read (0.00 / 0)

Here's a video from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. This is the organization that is helping communities fight corporations and is empowering citizens all over to take on the goliaths of "bad business." 

Here is a model brief to eliminate corporate rights, a tool for communities in fighting big corporations.

You may disagree with its mertis but when your a struggling town trying to fight folks like Vermont Yankee, Grace Chemical, Poland Spring Water, Monsanto, etc. communities need to think outside of the box. This is working in Pennsylvania townships who are fighting the hog industry and it suprises me that people on this site don't support it or are willing to give it a try. The other thing is getting governmental agencies to stop corporations from doing illegal and damaging activities doesn't work anymore. You can't stop them. You have to apply for all these regulations and permits through the EPA and other regulatory agencies and all that does is slow down environmental destruction, etc. It doesn't stop it. By revoking a corporation's charter, gives small towns on a fair playing field that the EPA and other regulatory agencies CANNOT provide!

To learn more about the miracles in Pennsylvania PLEASE read the following. I'd also recommend these stories as well.

I thought Democratic Party enthusiasts were all about empowering citizens? Why not support this when citizens are using this model? Maybe perhaps the Dems are pocketing the money from companies like the ones citizens are trying to fight!!!

To learn more visit CELDF.

I hope this provides a better picture of what this is all about.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 10:17:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Living in a Reality Based World (4.00 / 2)

Instead of relying on unaccepted legal theories, why not empower citizens to become citizen legislators or citizen lobbyists to enact pro-environment or pro-consumer legislation?  This obsession with corporate charters is not quite as far out there as the Browns' arguments against income taxation, but it is pretty far out there, and does not cure the problem of bad people doing bad things. Fighting a battle based on a legal theory that will end up being thrown out in court doesn't solve the problem and is a disservice to the people you want to empower. 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 20:11:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A suggestion (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect Kathy, take a Daniel Pennock democracy class before you judge. It's not as simpleminded as you make it out to be. As I said before, it's help townships in Pennsylvania battle hog farms and citizens who take these classes feel a sense of empowerment. IMO going through the environmental regulatory system/process is set up against citizens from stopping big business abuses. This gives small town communities a fair fight and enables local control over their own communities.

While running for your local municipality, selectboard etc. helps, IMO it's not an excuse to look outside of the box and look for other solutions to fight the powers that be. As I said, we can regulate the hell out of corporations, go through all kinds of legal fees, permits, wasted time, etc. or we can help communities help themselves and stop big business abuse from the get-go.

RIchard Grossman (one of the teachers in the video) lives in Moultonborough (WAHOO!) so Democracy classes in NH come around often. In the meantime, here's another great interview with Richard Grossman.

Hope this helps to anyone else who's interested.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 21:40:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Moratorium (4.00 / 1)

I propose a moratorium on the of signing any new Bush backed Trade Bill until after the next election. Even if Obama or Hillary are in favor, it is time to step back from the unfettered free trade road.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:56:07 AM CDT

Edwards and the Peru Trade Deal: A Leftward Tilt ? (4.00 / 2)

The upcoming votes on pre-negotiated Trade deals, made favorable to beliefs of the Bush Administration by a conciliating Democratic Congress, are a litmus test for any real Democrat to stand up against Corporate interests and side with the American worker. By Corporate types I mean large institutions like Banks and Industrial multinationals. Unlike individuals, they have no loyalties to nation or state. These are the type who support both sides with their lobbying, whose only motive is to increase quarterly profits to drive stock increases. Their current and former American workers' pay stagnates and/or goes down in real terms, while we pay our businesses through subsidies to go offshore to low wage countries to take advantage of their labor force. This shell game will end when we force American companies to pay fair wages, and require of them a commitment to America when they try and ditch their obligations under our laws.
We need a national review of Trade laws and a Moratorium against signing on to any Bush Era pacts.

Edwards' attack on Peru deal shifts debate

By Eoin Callan

Financial Times

Updated: 6:42 p.m. ET Oct 28, 2007

The Democratic presidential field in the US tilted to the left at the weekend as John Edwards came out against the US trade agreement with Peru.

Mr Edwards is the first leading contender for the presidential nomination to oppose the pact with the Latin American nation now making its way through Congress.

The move increases the political pressure on Senator Hillary Clinton to vote against the agreement when it reaches the Senate floor next month.

Although Ms Clinton is the clear frontrunner nationally, Mr Edwards has focused his campaign for the White House on the prospect of an early victory in Iowa, where he has made gains with a message of economic populism.

Mrs Clinton has responded by becoming steadily more strident in her criticism of US trade policy, denouncing a pending trade deal with Seoul.

The vote on the Peru agreement will be a key test of the New York Senator's desire to distance herself from her husband's legacy, which includes passing the North American Free Trade Agreement, now unpopular with the party's grassroots.

"This is where the rubber hits the road and we find out how far Hillary thinks she needs to go on trade to court the Democratic base. And because Peru is about to go to a Senate vote she can't duck the issue," said Lori Wallach, a critic of the deal at Global Trade Watch.

Mrs Clinton's main rival, Barack Obama, recently came out in favour of the Peru deal, while over the weekend Senator Joe Biden announced his opposition to the agreement.

Mr Edwards said he also intended to "oppose the Colombia, Panama and South Korea trade agreements in their present forms".

His opposition to the Peru deal will be a setback for Congressional Democrats trying to build a strong majority behind the agreement on Capitol Hill.

The candidate said a historic bipartisan agreement between the George W. Bush, the president, and Democrats to include tougher labour and environmental standards in the Peru pact fell short.

"Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labour organisations and fair trade advocates to embed international labour standards into the agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards," he said.

"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."

The criticism was welcomed by the deal's opponents, who include the heads of Peru's labour movement and Pedro Barretto, the country's archbishop.

Mr Edwards singled out "provisions that could allow US banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatisation".

He also offered a broader critique of the US approach to negotiating trade deals modelled on the North American Free Trade Agreement. "All of these agreements provide the expansive investor rights that literally create incentives to relocate US jobs overseas," he said.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 22:41:28 PM CDT

John Edwards concurs (4.00 / 1)

that any unsigned trade deal currently om the table should be put on hold..."because they are Bush's". I just got a chance to speak with him for a minute after he filed. I hope he brings this up tomorrow night in Philadelphia.
By the way congrats to Sox fans. Now the real season begins...

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:11:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pat Buchanan of all people (0.00 / 0)

predicted that Edwards would go to Philly to beat HRC about the head and neck with NAFTA and trade issues.


SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 22:14:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]