G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
SECRET TRADE DEAL - DAY 9: Moyers Special Airs As Rangel Attacks Dem
Colleagues
By David Sirota
Created May 20 2007 - 8:04am
This is another in a series of ongoing posts [1] following the announcement
of a secret free trade deal on May 10, 2007 between a handful of senior
Democrats and the Bush administration.
On the same day PBS aired Bill Moyers hard-hitting piece on the secret free
trade deal, the network also aired an interview with a frustrated Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who lashed out at the
growing opposition to the deal from rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers and
millions of workers, farmers and small businesses. Meanwhile, an industry
newsletter breaks the news that at least one senior Democrat involved in the
secret deal admits that Democrats have delegated responsibility for drafting
the final legislative language of the deal entirely to the Bush White House.
Here's today's update.
"AN ATTEMPT BY DEM LEADERSHIP TO RAISE WALL STREET MONEY": PBS's Bill Moyers
nationally televised special on the secret deal aired last night [2], and
was a scathing critique of the secrecy of the deal, the details we know
about it, and the media's complicity in pushing it without ever seeing the
legislative language. As Moyers said to begin the piece, reporters and
pundits are cheering on the deal [3] yet "all they know is what they've been
told [because] the negotiation of this deal was secret [and] its official
language has still not been made public." John MacArthur, author of The
Selling of Free Trade, told Moyers in an interview that the motivation for
the handful of Democratic leaders who cut the deal with the White House was
cash. "This is like the NAFTA campaign of the '90s," MacArthur said. "[It
is] an attempt by the Democratic leadership - in those days it was the
Clintons - to raise money from Wall Street." Watch Moyers' full PBS report
here [4], or read the transcript here [5].
RANGEL SAYS FAIR TRADE DEMS IN CONGRESS "ARE JUST WASTING MY TIME" AND
SHOULD BE "IGNORED": Reuters reports that in an interview with PBS's Nightly
Business Report, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) [6]
defended the secret deal he cut with the White House, and lashed out at
those raising questions about its secrecy and its potentially unenforceable
nature. Reuters notes that the deal was the result of "months of closed-door
negotiations" and that "Rangel offered no apology" for such secrecy.
Addressing the Democratic congressional critics of the deal, the majority of
Americans polls [7] show are opposed to lobbyist-written trade pacts, and
labor [8], environmental [9], health [10], human rights [11], religious
[12], consumer protection [13] and agricultural [14] groups rising questions
about the deal, Rangel said the only thing he would do differently would be
to "ignore a lot of people that really were just wasting my time."
BUSH WHITE HOUSE "IS DRAFTING THE LEGAL LANGUAGE": Inside U.S. Trade [15]
reports that facing growing criticism about the secrecy of the deal from
rank-and-file Democrats in Congress about the deal, Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI)
"said that little additional information could be provided until the exact
legal language of the deal has been worked out" and that the Bush White
House "is now drafting that legal language." In other words, Democrats in on
the deal delegated the responsibility of drafting the final language to the
Bush White House all while rank-and-file Democrats have not been given any
potential drafts of the legislative language to review. Meanwhile, the
Bush-connected head of the Chamber of Commerce has said he has received
"assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance."
[16]
SIERRA CLUB'S POPE SLAMS THE DEAL: Sierra Club President Carl Pope penned a
thoughtful piece [17] about the deal, saying the entire debate shows "just
how far trade agreements had migrated from any reasonable balance." He says:
"These deals have not been about free trade for some time, but about trade
managed for the benefit of multinationals. As a result, trade has, its
strongest advocates now concede, been bad for the American economy since
1995...What do I mean by saying these agreements are unbalanced? Well, if a
signatory to a typical trade agreement violates the patent protection rights
of a US drug manufacturer to provide cheaper life saving medicines for its
population, the drug company can bring a legal action against it. But if the
same country brings down drug prices for import into the US by using forced
labor, a union can't do anything about it. If Peru revokes a logging
concession granted to US timber companies, regardless of the fairness of the
original agreement, the timber company can sue for damages. But if the same
US timber company illegally logs Peruvian mahogany and imports it into the
US, a sustainable US hardwood competitor can't file for damages -- even
under the proposed, "environmentally more friendly" terms being talked
about...Neither unions nor environmental groups have the rights given to
businesses to make sure that worker's rights and the environment are
protected; for this they would have to depend on the US government which,
under its present leadership, is hardly a reliable cop on the beat." While
he concedes the deal includes minor progress on a few issues, he says "we
are starting from such a bad baseline -- trade deals which are neither free
nor fair -- that we have a long way to go, much further than Washington has
agreed to this week."
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
Colleagues
By David Sirota
Created May 20 2007 - 8:04am
This is another in a series of ongoing posts [1] following the announcement
of a secret free trade deal on May 10, 2007 between a handful of senior
Democrats and the Bush administration.
On the same day PBS aired Bill Moyers hard-hitting piece on the secret free
trade deal, the network also aired an interview with a frustrated Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who lashed out at the
growing opposition to the deal from rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers and
millions of workers, farmers and small businesses. Meanwhile, an industry
newsletter breaks the news that at least one senior Democrat involved in the
secret deal admits that Democrats have delegated responsibility for drafting
the final legislative language of the deal entirely to the Bush White House.
Here's today's update.
"AN ATTEMPT BY DEM LEADERSHIP TO RAISE WALL STREET MONEY": PBS's Bill Moyers
nationally televised special on the secret deal aired last night [2], and
was a scathing critique of the secrecy of the deal, the details we know
about it, and the media's complicity in pushing it without ever seeing the
legislative language. As Moyers said to begin the piece, reporters and
pundits are cheering on the deal [3] yet "all they know is what they've been
told [because] the negotiation of this deal was secret [and] its official
language has still not been made public." John MacArthur, author of The
Selling of Free Trade, told Moyers in an interview that the motivation for
the handful of Democratic leaders who cut the deal with the White House was
cash. "This is like the NAFTA campaign of the '90s," MacArthur said. "[It
is] an attempt by the Democratic leadership - in those days it was the
Clintons - to raise money from Wall Street." Watch Moyers' full PBS report
here [4], or read the transcript here [5].
RANGEL SAYS FAIR TRADE DEMS IN CONGRESS "ARE JUST WASTING MY TIME" AND
SHOULD BE "IGNORED": Reuters reports that in an interview with PBS's Nightly
Business Report, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) [6]
defended the secret deal he cut with the White House, and lashed out at
those raising questions about its secrecy and its potentially unenforceable
nature. Reuters notes that the deal was the result of "months of closed-door
negotiations" and that "Rangel offered no apology" for such secrecy.
Addressing the Democratic congressional critics of the deal, the majority of
Americans polls [7] show are opposed to lobbyist-written trade pacts, and
labor [8], environmental [9], health [10], human rights [11], religious
[12], consumer protection [13] and agricultural [14] groups rising questions
about the deal, Rangel said the only thing he would do differently would be
to "ignore a lot of people that really were just wasting my time."
BUSH WHITE HOUSE "IS DRAFTING THE LEGAL LANGUAGE": Inside U.S. Trade [15]
reports that facing growing criticism about the secrecy of the deal from
rank-and-file Democrats in Congress about the deal, Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI)
"said that little additional information could be provided until the exact
legal language of the deal has been worked out" and that the Bush White
House "is now drafting that legal language." In other words, Democrats in on
the deal delegated the responsibility of drafting the final language to the
Bush White House all while rank-and-file Democrats have not been given any
potential drafts of the legislative language to review. Meanwhile, the
Bush-connected head of the Chamber of Commerce has said he has received
"assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance."
[16]
SIERRA CLUB'S POPE SLAMS THE DEAL: Sierra Club President Carl Pope penned a
thoughtful piece [17] about the deal, saying the entire debate shows "just
how far trade agreements had migrated from any reasonable balance." He says:
"These deals have not been about free trade for some time, but about trade
managed for the benefit of multinationals. As a result, trade has, its
strongest advocates now concede, been bad for the American economy since
1995...What do I mean by saying these agreements are unbalanced? Well, if a
signatory to a typical trade agreement violates the patent protection rights
of a US drug manufacturer to provide cheaper life saving medicines for its
population, the drug company can bring a legal action against it. But if the
same country brings down drug prices for import into the US by using forced
labor, a union can't do anything about it. If Peru revokes a logging
concession granted to US timber companies, regardless of the fairness of the
original agreement, the timber company can sue for damages. But if the same
US timber company illegally logs Peruvian mahogany and imports it into the
US, a sustainable US hardwood competitor can't file for damages -- even
under the proposed, "environmentally more friendly" terms being talked
about...Neither unions nor environmental groups have the rights given to
businesses to make sure that worker's rights and the environment are
protected; for this they would have to depend on the US government which,
under its present leadership, is hardly a reliable cop on the beat." While
he concedes the deal includes minor progress on a few issues, he says "we
are starting from such a bad baseline -- trade deals which are neither free
nor fair -- that we have a long way to go, much further than Washington has
agreed to this week."
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson