THE TEXT OF FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS: > Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:18:00 -0500 > From: Mike Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Multiple recipients of list TW-LIST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: The Trade Battle > > in case you missed this > ************** > The Trade Battle > By E. J. Dionne Jr. > Tuesday, January 26, 1999; Page A19 > > Among the stories buried under the past year's obsession with President > Clinton's scandal is a remarkable transformation in the debate over the > global economy and its effect on the jobs and incomes of Americans. > > While everyone talks about history's verdict on Clinton and impeachment, > the change in our approach to organizing the world's commerce bids to > play a larger role in defining this era's historical legacy. > > Clinton hinted at this in his State of the Union message. "I think trade > has divided us and divided Americans outside this chamber for too long," > he told Congress. "Somehow we have to find a common ground. . . . We > have got to put a human face on the global economy." > > Clinton went on to embrace a new International Labor Organization > initiative "to raise labor standards around the world" and pledged to > work for a treaty "to ban abusive child labor everywhere in the world." > He promised trade rules that would promote "the dignity of work and the > rights of workers" and "protect the environment." > > Behind these words is a battle that has been waged in Washington, > largely out of public view, since the 1997 defeat of a bill that would > have given Clinton the authority to negotiate trade treaties on a "fast > track." > > The fast-track defeat demonstrated that liberal, pro-labor Democrats now > have veto power over legislation to promote free trade and to support > global economic institutions such as the World Bank and the > International Monetary Fund. Without the liberals, there aren't enough > votes in Congress to pass such initiatives. These pro-labor Democrats > have used their newly found influence to push for more assistance to > workers who are hurt by freer trade and for stronger international rules > to protect workers' rights and the environment. > > Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says the new situation can be explained by > the division of Congress into three groups. There are, in his terms: (1) > "isolationists" who are skeptical of all international institutions and > free trade; (2) "trickle downers" who favor free trade and free markets > but oppose any rules to regulate the global economy; and (3) > "international New Dealers" who accept the global market as a reality > but care passionately about lifting labor standards and wages, in the > United States and elsewhere. > > Because the "trickle downers" lack the votes to pass free trade or > support international institutions on their own, they need the "New > Dealers" to create a majority. > > The Clinton administration, particularly Treasury Secretary Robert > Rubin, came to realize this and opened negotiations last year with Frank > and his allies -- they include House Minority Whip David Bonior > (D-Mich.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In October, Rubin sent a > letter to Frank making important concessions in pursuit of the group's > votes on new financing for the IMF. > > "I believe that one of the ways to build the confidence of workers is to > seek the adoption and promotion of policies abroad that will enhance the > respect for core labor standards," Rubin wrote. > > "The United States," he went on, "will work to affect the policy > dialogue between the IMF and borrowing countries so that recipient > countries commit to affording workers the right to free association and > collective bargaining through unions of their choosing." Rubin also > pledged to push the global financial institutions "to encourage sound > environmental policies." > > Clinton's State of the Union pledges were the logical next step in this > running negotiation. Frank saw Clinton's promise to work against > "abusive child labor" as especially significant. "It's important for > some of the labor people, and it's one of the most visible examples that > you can do something" to regulate the workings of the global > marketplace. > > C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics, > thinks the trade debate has changed fundamentally. > > "Most trade types thought the merits of free trade were so obvious, the > benefits were so clear, that you didn't have to worry about adjustments > -- you could just let the free market take care of it," he says. "The > sheer political gains of the anti-globalization side in the last few > years have made the free trade side realize that they have to do > something to deal with the losers from free trade and the dislocations > generated by globalization." > > This battle has only begun and the common ground that Clinton says he > seeks could prove elusive. "The jury is still out," Frank says, > referring to the administration's intentions. But creating a global > economy that promotes growth with a measure of social justice is a big > and worthy project -- yes, the sort of thing that might matter more to > historians than our current preoccupations. > > c Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company > > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed > without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the > included information for research and educational purposes. > > /s/ Mike Dolan, Field Director, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tradewatch.org > 202.546.4996 fax:547.7392 > > Join the Global Trade Watch list server. We will keep you up to date on > trade policy and politics. To subscribe, send this message: "SUBSCRIBE > TW-LIST" [followed by your name, your organizational affiliation and the > state in which you live] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
