Those of you against the Peru trade deal...what is wrong with it?

I have not read the agreement, so this is all I have to go on:



Is it good or bad?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1620

More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2216922

For example, why isn't the AFL-CIO against it?

."On the merits, there is almost no opposition to the agreement; notably, the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers have had positive things to say about its substantive details. Such opposition as exists is almost entirely symbolic, with some trade hardliners urging a "no" vote simply to signal generalized economic anxiety, or unhappiness with trade policy matters that have nothing to do with Peru.

Also, do you know if the version passed the social security privatization provision still intact?

You are quoting the only source really pushing it...the DLC

That same paragraph says there is almost no opposition to it, and then says those groups have "positive things to say".

I presented a lot of the opposition to it. That is just part of what I got in emails from various groups.

Yes, I understand the part about Peru and the Social Security was still in it, but they do keep so much secret now, you know.

More:

Rangel rammed it through and said he would catch hell later.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1355

And from antigop's post:

Rangel said if you are already hurting, it's a bad deal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3700686

Takes no position for or against, but says the entire approach to trade deals needs to be re-examined.

The tone is more of "Why bother to fight this because it's a done deal, but we have to start doing better."

Nothing that anybody on DU has shown me has convinced me that the dispute settlement system will award Citibank so much compensation that it will be financially unfeasible to nationalize their social security program.

But I did see that it would make it much more likely that Citigroup could sue them if they tried to fix their system.

Here are some more links, and then I am done.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/afta/articles.cfm?ID=16122
Includes articles, letters, and other documentation.

http://action.citizen.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=3012&t=BlankTemplate.dwt
Could worsen food safety

http://action.citizen.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=3369&t=BlankTemplate.dwt
Could affect Global warming.

More on the Social Security.
http://action.citizen.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=3418&t=BlankTemplate.dwt

""The proposed Bush expansion of NAFTA to Peru contains frightening provisions that could lock Peru into a privatized social security system similar to the Bush proposal that Democrats successfully fought last Congress. The main beneficiary of the provision seems to be Citibank, the largest shareholder in ProFuturo AFP, a company authorized to compete against Peru's national social security system.

If a lot of members of Congress vote for the Peru "free trade agreement" (FTA) containing this outrage, it could set a dangerous precedent for Social Security policies here at home. Congress needs to hear that Social Security has no business in a trade agreement."

More expansion to the rainforest
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1618

"But the “deal” announced on May 10 after months of secret negotiations did not remove the
harmful NAFTA-style provisions, while making steps on labor and environment that big
business groups say are unenforceable.37 In addition to replicating NAFTA’s harmful provisions
that have given foreign corporations excessive rights to trample public interest policy,38 hindered
access to life-saving medicines,39 and displaced (often into U.S. immigration) over a million
Mexican peasants,40 a key “fix” left unresolved was a little-known provision that would chill
attempts now underway by Peruvian labor, pensioner and health groups to reverse the failed
privatization of Peru’s social security system. What’s worse, this provision would appear to only
benefit Citibank, a highly politically influential corporation that is a major donor to many
prominent Democrats,41 and as noted is also the only major U.S. investor in Peru’s privatized
social security system."

http://www.citizen.org/documents/ssprivatizationreport_0607.pdf

Robert Rubin, isn't he head of Citibank now? I thought I read that. He has had free access to freshman dems as the only advisor with labor not being included. I may be wrong.

Rubin gets the floor to himself to talk to Freshmen Democrats

I heard this from an authoritative, authoritarian source.
No doubt.

I for one am really hoping you are.

That's gotta be some sort of attempt at satire, no?

It is a friday night, when folks get DU silly, and speak like the Magistrate and all sorts of shenanigans to lighten the foul mood of these warring primary struggles...and I thought the sarcasm tag was not needed.
Wrong again.

Last week, Cheney was ragging Chavez and said "the people of Peru deserve better" and I just relaxed and let it go.
Thanks for the warning, and hoping for me.
:hi:

Edit for typos, and to say "Sorry" to CalTeacherguy for joking on a serious thread.
Weekends are for whimsy.
All fun and games until someone gets hurt.

I know - who can keep up with all the Bush gaffes?

Just another step to make the U.S. standard of living crap, further shrinking the working middle class.

Working conditions for the workers are equal to working conditions in America in the early 1900's.

Product Quality - most if not all is made on the cheap, no inspection-this is one of the reasons companies outsource to Mexico, China and Peru's of the world...

Worker Safety - Little to none - there is hardly any government regulation of safe working environments, or hours worked...these workers work long days...

Also, the US government is giving American Corporations tax breaks and other breaks even though they have outsourced American jobs....shouldn't it be the other way around? Tax breaks to bring the work back to the US...?

I could go on...

Do you know the specifics of this agreeement with Peru? There is a claim that is has labor and environmental safeguards that other agreements have lacked.

The AFL-CIO is not opposing it. Why?

and they were roundly ignored.

The Peru deal requires labor provisions that go beyond what they already have, including the right to collective bargaining and the abolition of child labor.

http://www.nlginternational.org/news/article.php?nid=74

"In October 2006, at UE’s request, 53 labor organizations from Mexico, Canada and the U.S. brought charges that North Carolina’s ban on public employee bargaining violates the labor side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)".

Collective bargaining is in NAFTA too. Lota good it does.

Not the side deals, I can't remember the term, but sometimes they're in some sort of side language and that's how they get ignored. If there were some quotes of the langugage that is actually IN the agreement, that might be helpful. Do you have a link to the trade agreement, by chance? I've been too lazy to go look for it.

http://action.citizen.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=3012&t=BlankTemplate.dwt

"Public Citizen broke this story with our new report "Trade Deficit in Food Safety." Maybe you saw the coverage on CNN, which ran a story about our findings on the trade pact-unsafe import connection? The report includes a brand new analysis of the seafood safety problems with Peru and Panama, among other unappetizing details. But, now we need to make sure that Congress takes action and blocks the Bush administration's cynical bait and switch."

Peru, Panama & Colombia: NAFTA Expansion to the Rainforest and Beyond

"Because of the large territories of bio-diverse Amazon tropical rainforest and long histories of violence and unrest in the Andean countries, the mistaken application of the one-size fits all NAFTA model of trade in the region would likely have devastating consequences.

Despite heavy pressure from the Bush administration, the presidents of Ecuador and Bolivia have announced that they are not interested in NAFTA-style trade deals. But Peru and Colombia bowed to threats from the administration and Republican congressional leaders who threatened to end the countries’ existing access to U.S. markets if they didn’t sign up for full fledged NAFTA deals. The result was the U.S.-Peru and U.S.-Colombia “free trade” agreements (FTAs)."

".."Unfortunately, this May 2007 brought shockingly bad news. A handful of Democrats in the House of Representatives struck a "deal" with President Bush on the Peru and Panama FTAs that could pave the way also to the passage of the Colombia FTA and even to more Fast Track trade negotiating authority for President Bush. The deal makes needed improvements to the labor and environmental provisions, but unfortunately leaves in almost all the bad NAFTA-style provisions that fair trade groups demanded be taken out. Thus, the deal only puts a new roof on a condemned building."