Ok- seems like we should refocus on this question, especially since fast track legislation is going to be introduced today.
Lori Wallach of Public Citizen released a memo on Sept. 9th that discusses some of the reasons to oppose *this* fast track legislation. [I highlight *this* because some groups oppose fast track on the grounds that it is undemocratic while others oppose it because it fails to promote sustainable development (thus the reasons for environmental and labor standards).]
Wallach wrote,
"The GOP language is clever: It puts the "Environment" and "Labor" words into a fast track bill, but actually limits beyond even the status quo what fast track could cover on environment and labor. This is accomplished by restricting fast track coverage only to environment and labor provisions "directly related to trade."
Under the current fast track language, matters are considered germane and covered by fast track rules if such a matter is "necessary" or "appropriate" to obtaining a negotiating objective. The concept of "directly related to" language is to get rid of the potential grey area of "appropriate" which now provides discretion for a President to include human rights, labor, environmental or health issues under fast track if a President so chooses.
Under the Archer proposal, only those environmental or labor matters "directly related to" trade would be considered germane for fast track coverage.
Thus, we have ***good reason*** to oppose this fast track legislation because it fails to provide labor and environmental standards.
Another good reason, which seemed to be buried by the press earlier this year is that the NAFTA agreement has failed. The govt. put forth a mandated 3 year report earlier this summer on NAFTA which was very weak. Public Citizen, EPI, IPS, and a host of other groups refuted this document point by point--illustrating NAFTA's inability to provide jobs, the lack of environmental progress on the border, among a host of other problems. While NAFTA did not create many of the problems related to increased trade and investment along three unequal nations it has clearly accelerated them. (see Foreign Policy In Focus article <http://www.zianet.com/infocus/nafta.html> for more discussion on the NAFTA agreement. See also <http://www.zianet.com/infocus/tradenv> for info on trade and the environment and <http://www.zianet.com/infocus/tradelbr> for info on trade and labor).
Erik Leaver
Communications Director
Interhemispheric Resource Center
505-842-8288
