Kerry Says He'll Toughen Trade Deals

LAS VEGAS - Democrat John Kerry said Sunday that President Bush has turned his back on the American worker by allowing other countries to break trade deals negotiated with the United States and that as president he would put in place a "common-sense" effort to strengthen the bargaining and enforcement of such agreements.

Kerry said the nation's trade deficit stood at $500 billion largely because participating countries aren't required to improve labor standards and set environmental standards, making their products cheaper in this country and jeopardizing American jobs. In cases where those requirements exist, Bush isn't enforcing them, Kerry argued.

As president, new agreements will include enforceable labor and environmental provisions, he said. He did warn the union leaders that he would continue to push for trade agreements, though he said he would reject a Central American trade deal Bush is likely to sign.

Kerry's campaign theme this week is broadening opportunity — both economic and social — in this country. He heads to Topeka, Kan., on Monday to mark the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision that ended segregation in public schools. He also was touting his economic plan in Portland, Ore., with former rival Howard Dean.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=11&u=/ap/kerry

nothing.

It's too little, too late. Corporations (and their bought and paid-for government reps) aggressively negotiate these trade deals so that they explicitly favor the corporations over not just the workers, but the sovereign laws of countries, too.

Just look at how the WTO is set up: it can set penalties against countries who put up "barriers" to "free trade", even if these "barriers" are what keep their economy from being deliberately destroyed. The power of this unelected body exceeds that of sovereign nations, and yet we somehow think they'll act in the best interests of the people who inhabit these countries?

Sure, John Kerry is all about enforcing the "side agreements" to the free trade pacts that cover human rights and labor laws, but it still begs the question: if human rights were so important, then WHY are they not integral parts of these free trade pacts???

The reason is pretty simple, really: they were never meant to be enforced in the first place. After all, if you buy a car, do you set up a "side agreement", separate from the bill of sale, to buy the tires? Of course not!

"Fixing" these "free trade" treaties is impossible. They need to be scrapped, and new agreements need to be negotiated that put the rights of PEOPLE first, NOT transnational corporations.