The first thing you will notice is that I put the word "free" in quotes when referring to "free" trade. This is done for a simple reason, most trade agreements that are BILLED as free trade aren't free trade. A classic example of this would be NAFTA, which, if you actually read it, has 22 different chapters to it. Much of it is dense, legalese, but basically it allows for freeing up capital, but not labor. This isn't free trade, this is an agreement to screw over the working poor in three nations, at the same time.
I'm against free trade as it is billed and implemented in the world today, the biggest problem is two-fold, lack of transparency in the process, like closed door WTO meetings, and the lack of international standards in labor rights, environmental protection, and respect for domestic laws. The biggest problem is that free trade is regulated from one end of the spectrum, the employers, rather than the workers.
Proponents of "Free" trade as it is implemented today refer to it as a tool for world peace and economic development. They are right insofar as "world peace" is concerned, but only partially, for while two nations that have such an agreement in place may not declare war on each other while the agreement is in force, this doesn't mean violence itself stops. What good is peace if you require paramilitary forces to break strikes, burn villages, and force people to work in Free Trade Zones?
By my thinking, if we are to have free trade agreements, they need to be equalized, if a World Trade Organization is to exist, there should be a World Labor Organization as well. A WLO would balance out the WTO in many aspects, because it would include a group of people in the regulation of trade that have been ignored up to this point, the workers themselves. This could include helping workers to establish unions that are independent of governments and allow unions from one nation to join the unions of other nations when their interests and concerns are similar enough. The composition of a WLO would be from the unions themselves, through democratic elections. In addition, to make sure it has teeth, no trade agreement or regulation can be agreed upon unless the WLO and WTO both agree to it, and the meetings and dealings of both organizations should be a matter of public record, including unfettered media access.
This is one of many reforms that can be instituted that are more closely related to what is called fair trade than "free" trade. We need institutions and policies in place that will allow us to protect domestic workers in all nations, and to allow for sustainable growth and poverty reduction, worldwide.
I'm against free trade as it is billed and implemented in the world today, the biggest problem is two-fold, lack of transparency in the process, like closed door WTO meetings, and the lack of international standards in labor rights, environmental protection, and respect for domestic laws. The biggest problem is that free trade is regulated from one end of the spectrum, the employers, rather than the workers.
Proponents of "Free" trade as it is implemented today refer to it as a tool for world peace and economic development. They are right insofar as "world peace" is concerned, but only partially, for while two nations that have such an agreement in place may not declare war on each other while the agreement is in force, this doesn't mean violence itself stops. What good is peace if you require paramilitary forces to break strikes, burn villages, and force people to work in Free Trade Zones?
By my thinking, if we are to have free trade agreements, they need to be equalized, if a World Trade Organization is to exist, there should be a World Labor Organization as well. A WLO would balance out the WTO in many aspects, because it would include a group of people in the regulation of trade that have been ignored up to this point, the workers themselves. This could include helping workers to establish unions that are independent of governments and allow unions from one nation to join the unions of other nations when their interests and concerns are similar enough. The composition of a WLO would be from the unions themselves, through democratic elections. In addition, to make sure it has teeth, no trade agreement or regulation can be agreed upon unless the WLO and WTO both agree to it, and the meetings and dealings of both organizations should be a matter of public record, including unfettered media access.
This is one of many reforms that can be instituted that are more closely related to what is called fair trade than "free" trade. We need institutions and policies in place that will allow us to protect domestic workers in all nations, and to allow for sustainable growth and poverty reduction, worldwide.
