03/08/2010
This past July 22 I was given the opportunity to see United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk speak before a small but influential audience at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa. I, like many others in the audience, expected innocuous statements about increased regulatory cooperation and a ‘fair and ambitious conclusion of the Doha Round.’ To be sure there were the obvious diplomatic exigencies, but his selective criticism of China was nonetheless surprising.
It wasn’t that currency manipulation harangue currently fashionable in Washington, but concern that the American humanitarian approach to trade in Africa (African Growth and Opportunity Act) is being overshadowed by an amoral, conscious-less Chinese resource grab. Though Kirk’s observation was accurate, there was a slight hint of sanctimony—if only because the history of American foreign policy obliges a massive grain of salt when it comes to altruism.
But while it might be easier to let sanctimony slide when it comes to Africa, Kirk’s announcement on Friday that the Administration “is filing a case against Guatemala under the US-Central America Free Trade Agreement for its failure to enforce its labor laws” is a little too much swallow.
I actually spit out my coffee.
I tried to rationalize it, especially since the event I had in mind took place before the current leaders were even born, but I couldn’t shake my frustration. Someone must be compelled to have at least a little sense of history.
Eduardo Galeano once called Guatemala “the key to Latin America,” and from the standpoint of 20th century Latin American history, the CIA coup of 1954 was the watershed moment for overt American involvement in the region. The expropriation of unused land belonging to the United Fruit Company, for whom Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, had been lawyers, led directly to the end of the freely and fairly elected Presidency of Jacobo Arbenz and the subsequent deaths of up to 200,000 people. This, like the Bay of Pigs, isn’t disputed, so to go into further detail would be redundant.
Suffice it to say it’s pretty laughable to think that a country upon which the United States singlehandedly bestowed decade after decade of civil war is now being chosen as the first to reap the rewards of a new enlightened American trade policy—this being the first time the United States has pursued a free-trade partner for labor violations.
As Ambassador Kirk said, “With this case, we are sending a strong message that our trading partners must protect their own workers...”
A noble cause, no doubt. But let’s call a spade a spade.
Though the well-being of Guatemalan workers is the ostensible reason for the financial penalties that may be imposed, the truth is the Obama administration is kowtowing to the anti-free trade unions to which they’re beholden—it being an election year and all; in this case, it’s the AFL.-CIO.
There are labor violations in Guatemala? They’re discovering this now? What about the other sixteen countries with which the U.S. has FTAs? Will they now be subject to the new stringent American trading regime? Or will that only happen if they can make cheaper t-shirts?
If strengthening respect for the rule of law and the treatment of workers is really the goal, the United States should do everything it can to contribute to the success of the fragile International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Punishing Guatemalan exporters won’t help workers who, once they lose their jobs, will be forced to return to the informal economy and a daily struggle against criminals they know will never be punished.
The recent resignation of Carlos Castresana as the director of the CICIG due to links between Attorney General Conrado Reyes and organized crime, and the subsequent removal of Reyes, has left a gaping hole in the Guatemalan judicial system. If the Americans truly want to help, they’ll do it by helping repair the legacy of their intervention, not by pretending their protectionism is genuine concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment