This week the president and Congress take up the question of “fast track” authority for trade agreements. Under fast track authority, the president can present negotiated, international trade agreements to the legislative branch of government for approval or disapproval, but not for amendment. The reason for this, argues the administration, is that if Congress were allowed to pull apart and reassemble agreements which have already been negotiated in good faith with other countries, then the legislative assemblies of those other countries would be free to do the same and reaching international consensus on any issue will become just about impossible. That’s a reasonable argument, but if you accept it, you’re accepting a number of underlying assumptions.
The first assumption is that we live in an increasingly integrated world. Very few people reject this notion. Technology has brought the lives of people across the globe closer, politics cross national and continental boundaries and even if we don’t like it, we have to accept we live in a global economy.
If we accept that, the second underlying assumption says we need a mutually-agreed upon set of terms to regulate the conduct of individuals, corporations and nations, which leads to these international agreements and right back to the argument about fast track. But if we’re going to live in this big global village, is this the way we want our world government to run? Fifty years ago, I think most people thought these kind of global treaties would be worked out through the United Nations, but the UN is so divided into blocs and factions and the delegates are so hung up on process that the UN was barely three years old when the first round of GATT was doing an end run around it. The thing about GATT, and NAFTA, is that they operate by invitation only. They’re cliques, really. It’s as if the world economy were run by people in junior high school. In the case of NAFTA, it’s poor little Mexico in the hand-me-down clothes who gets invited to hang out with the way-cool kids, US and Canada, only Mexico doesn’t know the other two are only being nice so they can get Mexico to do their chores.
And who enforces the treaties? According to the treaties, they’re mutually enforcing – one country gets out of line and the others apply sanctions for negative reinforcement. But does that work in real life?
In 1982, an international moratorium on whaling was adopted by the 43 member countries of the International Whaling Commission. It worked for a while, but now whalers from Norway and Japan are killing more whales every year. Japanese whalers also violate an international whale sanctuary around Antarctica to kill whales. There are formal protests in all the official bodies and of course howls from conservation and animal rights groups, but the bottom line is, no country is willing to impose meaningful sanctions on Norway and Japan for the sake of whales. So what do you think will happen in five years or seven years, when it becomes painfully obvious that people in poor nations, and poor people in rich nations, are getting the short end of the stick under our global trade agreements?
So Congress will debate fast track this week and in the end the president and the corporations will get their way and there will be a little less democracy and more exploitation.
Before we get on the fast track, we should think about where we’ll be when we get off.
Fast Track to Where?
This week the president and Congress take up the question of “fast track” authority for trade agreements. Under fast track authority, the president can present negotiated, international trade agreements to the legislative branch of government for approval or disapproval, but not for amendment. The reason for this, argues the administration, is that if Congress were allowed to pull apart and reassemble agreements which have already been negotiated in good faith with other countries, then the legislative assemblies of those other countries would be free to do the same and reaching international consensus on any issue will become just about impossible. That’s a reasonable argument, but if you accept it, you’re accepting a number of underlying assumptions.
The first assumption is that we live in an increasingly integrated world. Very few people reject this notion. Technology has brought the lives of people across the globe closer, politics cross national and continental boundaries and even if we don’t like it, we have to accept we live in a global economy.
If we accept that, the second underlying assumption says we need a mutually-agreed upon set of terms to regulate the conduct of individuals, corporations and nations, which leads to these international agreements and right back to the argument about fast track. But if we’re going to live in this big global village, is this the way we want our world government to run? Fifty years ago, I think most people thought these kind of global treaties would be worked out through the United Nations, but the UN is so divided into blocs and factions and the delegates are so hung up on process that the UN was barely three years old when the first round of GATT was doing an end run around it. The thing about GATT, and NAFTA, is that they operate by invitation only. They’re cliques, really. It’s as if the world economy were run by people in junior high school. In the case of NAFTA, it’s poor little Mexico in the hand-me-down clothes who gets invited to hang out with the way-cool kids, US and Canada, only Mexico doesn’t know the other two are only being nice so they can get Mexico to do their chores.
And who enforces the treaties? According to the treaties, they’re mutually enforcing – one country gets out of line and the others apply sanctions for negative reinforcement. But does that work in real life?
In 1982, an international moratorium on whaling was adopted by the 43 member countries of the International Whaling Commission. It worked for a while, but now whalers from Norway and Japan are killing more whales every year. Japanese whalers also violate an international whale sanctuary around Antarctica to kill whales. There are formal protests in all the official bodies and of course howls from conservation and animal rights groups, but the bottom line is, no country is willing to impose meaningful sanctions on Norway and Japan for the sake of whales. So what do you think will happen in five years or seven years, when it becomes painfully obvious that people in poor nations, and poor people in rich nations, are getting the short end of the stick under our global trade agreements?
So Congress will debate fast track this week and in the end the president and the corporations will get their way and there will be a little less democracy and more exploitation.
Before we get on the fast track, we should think about where we’ll be when we get off.