Columnist distorts free trade controversy, opposition to WTO

Rudiger is a graduate student in urban planning and Cijvat is a
graduate student in electrical engineering. Both are members of the
Environmental Coalition.

By Kevin Rudiger and Ellie
Cijvat

This is a response to Justin Levi’s column,
“Eliminating economic barriers benefits all involved,”
(Viewpoint, Nov. 15) which trumpets the glories of free trade. With
so many inaccuracies and distortions, we’ll just start at the
very beginning. “Proclaim Jubilee! … If this rhetoric is
annoyingly familiar to you, I share your pain …” Of course
it should be familiar since the concept of Jubilee and forgiveness
of debt has been part of the Catholic tradition for thousands of
years. I suppose Levi is right. Those radicals like The Pope are at
it again.

This time they are suggesting that maybe nations which were
systematically destroyed through colonialism should not actually
have to pay wealthy nations billions of dollars in debt for the
privilege. Maybe, just maybe, it would be better to have them spend
their money on programs like education and health care.

Next, Levi refers to “an angry mob whose sole motivation
is to protest the concept known as free trade.” Did someone
watch a bit too much Fox News? The “angry mob” Levi
refers to were tens of thousands of union members, students and
other people who, far from wanting to protest the concept of free
trade, wanted to stand in solidarity with people around the world
who are working increasingly long hours for less pay, while the pay
of CEOs skyrockets, environmental and labor standards are gutted,
and corporations have an increasingly preeminent role in our
political system.

In fact, these nonviolent protesters were there making the very
radical argument that maybe we shouldn’t give an unelected,
unaccountable and undemocratic institution like the WTO the ability
to overturn and nullify U.S. law.

  Illustration by ZACH LOPEZ/Daily Bruin A poll conducted
for the Democratic Leadership Council showed that 51 percent of
Americans believe that “America’s integration in global
markets” primarily “benefits multinational corporations
at the expense of average working families.” Thus, a majority
of the American people have something in common with the
protesters.

Levi proceeds to argue that sweatshop factories are somehow
justifiable on the basis that at least the workers have a
sweatshop. Again, turning to that radical notion of democracy, it
is important to recognize that in many countries where these
companies are setting up production, workers do not have the right
to organize unions to demand decent wages and safe working
conditions. One need not be anti-capitalist to believe that unions
are an important and necessary component of a functioning
democracy.

But, unfortunately, many of the new “free trade”
agreements have absolutely no provisions for protection of labor
rights and have mainly meant freedom for corporations to make
higher profits on the backs of American and foreign workers.

The reality is that even in these heady times of economic boom,
it is important to ask ““ economic boom for whom? Between 1989
and 1998, the real wages of the poorest fifth of Americans have
actually fallen five percent. If, over the last 40 years, the
minimum wage had risen as fast as CEO pay, it would now be $24.13
an hour.

In developing countries the situation is worse. Where previously
people had access to free health care and free education, so-called
Structural Adjustment Programs imposed by the International
Monetary Fund have ended government support of these programs.
Thus, for many people at the bottom end, free trade does not bring
“living standards, education and democracy of the
West”; instead, it brings tightened living conditions,
expensive education and undemocratic multinationals in power.

Levi’s mentioning of Adam Smith is flawed for two reasons.
First, Smith never envisioned a world where a company would come
into a region to produce goods, solely using the work force ““
moving in the supplies and moving out the final products. More
suitable would be to buy supplies locally, and to invest part of
the profit locally ““ basically, to live in a community
instead of exploiting it.

Second, the current global economy is not run by people but by
large corporations. Levi’s claim that the World Trade
Organization “can’t make regulations at all”
boggles the mind, to borrow an expression. On its home page
(www.wto.org) thousands of documents can be found regulating all
aspects of trade on which the WTO has ruling power. Over 130
nations have joined the WTO and are bound by these rulings.

Moreover, the ruling committee of the WTO is not appointed
democratically or held accountable to any democratically-elected
body. Thus, the WTO is not just an innocent social gathering, as
Levi seems to think.

Levi also brings up the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. But
what has NAFTA done for the environment? Basically, it has
facilitated imposing economic sanctions on governments for having
environmental protection laws.

Governments have a choice: pay dearly for environmental
protection laws or have no environmental protection laws at all. To
date, every single NAFTA ruling dealing with the environment has
resulted in a loss for the environment and a victory for polluters.
Whether we are talking about environmental or labor standards, it
is clear that the race to the bottom is on.

With respect to the facts, here are some more. As of September
2000, more than 500,000 U.S. workers have applied for a special
NAFTA unemployment program ““ meaning that these workers have
met narrow requirements certifying that they were fired because of
NAFTA. But this is just the tip of the iceberg because the criteria
is very narrow and not all workers know about its existence.

More than 86 percent of U.S. consumers say they are willing to
pay a couple of bucks more for a product made under decent
conditions compared to sweatshop-made products, according to a poll
by Marymount University.

Furthermore, the effects of NAFTA can be especially seen in
Mexico, where the number of Mexicans in extreme poverty increased
from 31 percent in 1994 to 51 percent in 1997.

These numbers show a different side of the “free
trade” coin. Simplistic trade models such as the ones Levi
throws around do not begin to address the complexities of the world
economy and the impacts that corporate-led globalization has had on
average people around the world.

The majority of people in the streets in Seattle, Washington,
D.C., or here in Los Angeles this summer at the Democratic National
Convention are not anti-globalization. Rather, we want a
globalization which expands democracy, not cripples it, which works
for workers not for corporations, and which protects the
environment rather than continuing to exploit it.