GLOBALIZATION AND TRADE

» Alternatives To Corporate Globalization

» Democracy, Sovereignty and Federalism

» Deregulation and Access to Services

» Import Safety, Environment and Health

» Jobs, Wages and Economic Outcomes

» NAFTA, WTO, Other Trade Pacts

» Other Issues

Trade Data Center

One-stop shop for searchable trade databases, case lists & more

Eyes on Trade

Global Trade Watch blog on globalization & trade. Subscribe to RSS.

Debunking Trade Myths

To hide the facts about failed trade policies, proponents are changing the data

Connect with GTW

What's New - Global Trade Watch


View 'What's New' Archives

Statement of Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, On Passage of Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements

July 24, 2003

If the WTO and NAFTA were earthquakes, the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements would be tiny aftershocks capable of limited damage, which is why we knew from Day One that they would pass Congress even though their terms are retrograde. What is interesting about these "non-controversial" trade votes is that they obtained even less Democratic support than the 2001 China Permanent Normal Trade Relations vote and more GOP opposition than the 2001 Fast Track vote.

The last bilateral agreement with a small nation was the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, which contained vital labor and environmental provisions and thus passed Congress unanimously on a voice vote. Given the small size of the countries and their relative levels of development, the fact that the Singapore and Chile pacts faced any opposition indicates the serious problems with the terms contained within these pacts.

Although these pacts did not garner the 300-plus votes that business and the GOP predicted, the administration may still attempt to argue that today’s votes demonstrate the revival of a bipartisan consensus on trade that will result in easy passage for future pacts, such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). In fact, the opposite is true.

In reality, a review of the votes on these two small trade deals shows the depth of political trouble facing the two major trade agreements, CAFTA and FTAA, which are coming next. The draft FTAA text includes offensive terms on labor, environment, investment, access to medicine and immigration that also are being tabled in the CAFTA talks. As a result, a vast array of Democrats and a significant number of Republicans have realized that they will need to oppose both of the pacts and thus decided to vote for these two small pacts for political insulation. For the corporate interests celebrating passage, consideration of what getting so many votes from those who do not support the merits of these deals means for the important agreements coming down the pike will be the cause of tomorrow’s political hangover.

While the Chile and Singapore pacts’ effects will be minimal because of the relatively small size of the countries involved, they represent a terrible model for trade and globalization policy because they repeat NAFTA’s most damaging provisions, rewrite swaths of U.S. immigration policy, permit high-tech products made in China and other nations to enter the United States duty-free by passing through Singapore, and forbid countries from using short-term capital controls during economic crises. These pacts also include NAFTA-like terms allowing foreign corporations to sue signatory governments for cash compensation in trade tribunals for the costs of complying with non-discriminatory domestic regulations. Further, the pacts lack vital labor and environmental terms, and include patent rules that limit consumers’ access to affordable medicines. If these rules were applied to large blocs of countries as the administration proposes, the result would be disastrous.

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.