I wonder why Sirota didn't mention their names. Hmmmmm. Oh, yeah, that's right. Because they don't invoke the response he's looking for. He bangs the pot, incites the outrage, and points at a familiar target: Rahm Emamuel. The same Rahm Emanuel supported by the AFL-CIO in his congressional run. But I digress.
Is it lazy journalism? No, it's more cynical than that. Jerry Falwell also dealt in sensationalism. He rallied venom based on familiar targets, in his case gays. Sirota prefers his prey come in the form of Democrats. And nobody bothers to do the hard work of doing the research to read the
whole story, something that often isn't found on blogs.
And why should Sirota bother to report the story when he can write it with that special twist of *breaking news* ... "The Dems f*cked up
again and it's Rahm Emanuel's fault." The caucus is playing hardball, and Sirota bangs the pot, rallies the venom and outrage, and points to Emanuel. He's the one. Get him.
Here's what Charlie Rangel's, yes it was Charlie that negotiated with Bush, negotiations looked like. And, btw, the details of the provisions haven't even been released yet, but it's never too soon for the gnashing of teeth.
However, in March, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, with a mixed voting record on trade issues, proposed a "New Trade Policy for America" that sets conditions for the administration to win Democratic support for recently negotiated trade agreements with Panama, Peru, Colombia and South Korea.
Rangel would make all trade agreements require enforcement of core International Labor Organization (ILO) rights--such as the right to organize and prohibitions on child labor, forced labor and discrimination in employment--through the same dispute settlement mechanisms used to enforce business interests, like intellectual property rights. His proposal, hastily endorsed by the House Democratic Caucus, also insisted on enforcing multilateral environmental agreements, establishing a fair balance between poor countries' access to drugs and pharmaceutical company patents, ensuring that government procurement promotes worker rights and guaranteeing that foreign investors in the United States are not granted greater rights than American investors (reversing one of NAFTA's most controversial provisions).
Rangel's proposal also called for more strictly enforcing existing trade laws, pressuring China to revalue its currency, opening markets for U.S. exports, increasing assistance for retraining displaced workers and expanding help to the world's poorest countries.
Bush administration officials did not dismiss the proposal out of hand, but they are unlikely to accept it without modifications, which would then lose crucial Democratic support. Fair trade advocates were cautiously optimistic. "It's a good step trying to fix what's awful," says Slevin, deputy director of Global Trade Watch. The AFL-CIO did not immediately endorse the deal, but Policy Director Thea Lee says, "This is a good step forward, but if there's any weakening, all bets are off."
The administration doesn't want to include ILO core rights, preferring to require only that countries enforce their own laws or the equivalent of American labor laws. Free trade ideologues argue that including ILO-defined rights in the agreement could lead to challenges under future trade agreements to American labor laws. "In a rare show of honesty by the administration, they acknowledge in their proposal that labor standards in the U.S. are so bad that they fear they no longer meet ILO standards," AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Rich Trumka says. In any case, neither Democrats nor unions would accept anything short of ILO core rights.
But the issue is not only standards but also writing tougher enforcement mechanisms into any agreement. Despite requirements under the Central American Free Trade agreements to strengthen worker rights, recent reports in the New York Times and Washington Post about Guatemala highlighted the use of child labor, an assassination of a labor leader and other labor rights violations. Serious labor rights violations also have occured in Jordan, even though the Clinton-negotiated labor rights provisions there were the strongest of any recent trade agreement.
Bush's new trade agreements faced an uphill battle even before Rangel's challenge. Unions and human rights advocates will oppose any agreement with Colombia, where 77 trade unionists were killed last year. And American auto, agricultural and other industrial interests, as well as unions, have spoken out against the Korean trade deal, which South Korea's unions and farmers oppose. U.S. fair trade advocates also criticize the Peru and Panama agreements but more for the damage they're likely to cause those countries than for harm to the United States.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/mobile/article/making_trade_work_for_everyone/