Rev. John L. McCullough
Photo: T.Abraham/CWS |
From the Executive Director's Desk...
Considering the Whole: Trade That Serves the Common Good
February 2007
By Rev. John L. McCullough, Executive Director and CEO, Church World
Service
U.S. trade policy is one of Church World Service’s advocacy priorities because it touches upon so many aspects of the lives of people living in poverty in developing nations. As Congress has considered specific trade agreements, we have raised various concerns about the impact of these policies. Now, the prospect of the expiration of the President’s “fast track” negotiating authority offers a major opportunity to comprehensively reshape the trade agenda.
Biblical Reflection
“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit….If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.”
1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 26
As I read about what various elected officials have to say about the goals of our trade policy, I worry because no one seems to be considering the whole.
Some who espouse unbridled free trade assume various economic benefits -- like new or better jobs, higher wages, and lower prices for consumer goods -- will occur and be spread widely to everyone in the United States and our trading partners. But, they don’t test their assumptions with the realities of the impacts on people struggling to survive day to day. Recent academic research on the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement on Mexico, Canada and the U.S., for example, indicates that the actual benefits were not as great as promised and that working people in these three nations were harmed.
Now, some Congressional leaders are raising questions about the effects of trade and globalization on workers, small farmers, and the environment in the United Sates. This is to be welcomed. But, they don’t talk about those same concerns as they relate to developing countries. These leaders often take a win/lose approach to trade, and want to make sure that some of the hardships for Americans are softened and that the bulk of the benefits from any particular agreement accrue here at home.
This passage from Corinthians offers an alternative vision for U.S. trade policy – one modeled on the realization that the welfare of all people (inside and outside the U.S.) are interconnected – we’re all part of one human community. This wider view challenges us to take a compassionate, cooperative approach to trade, not a win-lose negotiating stance. It calls us to re-member the whole by making trade policy serve larger, global humanitarian goals and long term U.S. interests in a more secure world. Indeed, only by doing so, will U.S. trade policy truly benefit Americans.
A major political opening on trade
On July 1, the President’s special authority to negotiate trade agreements is set to expire. This authority mandates that Congress consider agreements on an expedited time frame with only an up or down vote on the entire deal. Some leaders in Congress are using the pending debate on renewing this trade promotion authority (TPA), formerly known as “fast track”, as an opportunity to broadly rethink U.S. trade policy.
The Constitution grants to Congress the sole ability to levy duties (taxes on imports) and regulate foreign commerce, while it designates the President as having the exclusive authority to negotiate international agreements. As the global economy grew more complex and trade more important in the life of our country, Congress worked out various compromises with the Administration to facilitate trade negotiations. Since 1974, it has granted “fast track” authority to the President under various terms and conditions. (It was not in force during 1994-2002.)
These terms and conditions include Congress setting various negotiating goals and objectives, requiring consultation and notification at various points along the way during negotiations. If the Administration does not meet these requirements, Congress can withhold TPA rules when debating and voting on an agreement. However, the TPA legislation contains such complicated and difficult hurdles for withholding expedited treatment that, in effect, this is a meaningless option. This option has never been used, despite the fact that the Executive Branch has never engaged in significant consultation with Congress before a deal concludes.
Setting a new course on trade
In reconsidering TPA, Congress has the opportunity to expand the goals of U.S. trade policy beyond narrow “commercial interests” and recognize that other critical goals – such as national security, foreign policy, and sustainable human development – also should shape the U.S. trade agenda.
It is unconscionable, for example, that the United States Trade Representative negotiated stricter rules about access to essential medicines needed for treating such diseases HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB in recent bilateral and regional trade agreements than exist at the World Trade Organization.
It doesn’t make sense to decimate local agricultural production in Mexico (over 1 million corn farmers were driven off their lands as a result of the inflow of subsidized U.S. corn with the North American Free Trade Agreement) and then complain about illegal immigration.
The examples of inconsistencies and short-sightedness in U.S. trade policies are all too numerous.
These concerns will be given voice in a March 13 Congressional briefing entitled “Rethinking Trade Policy for the Common Good,” and hosted by Representatives Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Walter Jones (R-NC). In this briefing Church World Service and other member organizations of the Washington-based Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment will unite with key legislators on Capitol Hill to advance a vision of a more just framework for U.S. trade policy.
Congressional leaders should replace TPA with more far-sighted and equitable trade policy goals – reflecting a different understanding of the global community. They should promote the interest of family farmers and working people both in developing nations and in the United States. Additionally, a new trade policy framework must significantly reinsert Congress in a meaningful way during trade negotiations.
It is time to scrap “fast track” Trade Promotion Authority legislation and begin a robust discussion to create a new framework for U.S. trade agreements.
Back to top