Re: query: bio chem weapons
This is excerpted from a Foreign Policy In Focus brief on Chemical and Biological Weapons written by Martin Calhoun, senior research analyst for the Center for Defense Information. If people would like a copy of the entire article (4 pages printed) please let me know. Three recent events-the extensive use of chemical weapons during the Iran-lraq war (1983-88), the March 1995 sarin nerve gas attack by terrorists in the Tokyo subway, and the uncovering by the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) of the extent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs-have reminded nations of the danger posed by CBWs and the need to control their spread. Currently, as many as 25 countries are believed to already have or to be interested in acquiring chemical weapons programs, while 10-12 countries are suspected to have or be interested in acquiring biological weapons programs. Only three nations-the U.S. (with 31,000 tons of chemical warfare agents), Russia (with 40,000 tons), and Iraq (with several hundred tons)-have openly acknowledged possessing chemical weapons arsenals. No countries admit to having currently active, offensive biological weapons programs yet revelations indicate that both Iraq and Russia have recently maintained such programs. The U.S. unilaterally renounced biological methods of warfare in 1969 and subsequently destroyed its biological weapons arsenal. Foreign Policy In Focus is a joint project of the Interhemipsheric Resource Center (IRC) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). In Focus briefs document the problems of current U.S. foreign policy and offer recommendations for alternative policy directions that would make the United States a more responsible global partner. To order Foreign Policy In Focus, call (505) 842-8288 or visit our website for ordering information at: http://www.zianet.com/infocus. To subscribe to the New U.S. Foreign Policy discussion list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inside the body of the message write: Join newusfp [Your Email Address]. *
[PEN-L:12746] Child Labor in the Global Economy
Foreign Policy In Focus: Child Labor in the Global Economy By Terry Collingsworth, General Counsel, International Labor Rights Fund Editors: Tom Barry (IRC) and Martha Honey (IPS) Vol 2, No. 46 October 1997 Key Points * Child labor is a serious problem with over 250 million children working around the world. * Poverty is an immediate reason why families send their child to work, but putting children to work in lieu of education condemns them to a life of poverty. * Legislation introduced by Senator Harkin to ban products made with child labor from import to the U.S., while never enacted, provided the stimulus for model programs like RUGMARK. Advocacy by human rights groups, repeated media exposure, and reaction to legislative proposals advanced to ban products made by child labor have led to widespread acknowledgment that child labor is a serious problem in the world. It is a problem that has its roots in poverty and the lack of educational facilities for children of the poor. Around the world, but particularly in the South, these circumstances force children into the work force-pushing children into the streets to beg, into the fields to labor as farm hands, and into factories. The International Labor Organization (ILO), the tripartite body representing governments, labor and employers, estimates that more than 250 million children are at work in the global economy. Many products, ranging from hand-knotted carpets sold in the most exclusive stores to soccer balls and T-shirts sold in malls, are made with child labor. Concrete action, however, lagged behind debate over child labor. Only in 1992 when Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced the Child Labor Deterrence Act, which sought to ban products made with child labor from importation to the U.S., did the action begin. Much of the initial response from export-oriented industries amounted to aggressive denial followed by accusations that the Harkin legislation was "protectionist" and aimed at destroying foreign competition. Such positions may have played well in the local press, but the business community soon realized that serious steps were necessary to avoid the law's potential application. Animated by the ideas and leadership of Kailash Satyarthi, Chair of the South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude (SACCS) based in India, the RUGMARK Foundation was one of the first and most successful efforts to create a program to deal effectively with child labor in the notorious South Asian hand-knotted carpet industry. The RUGMARK model confronting the problem of child labor includes two key components: Independent monitoring and education/rehabilitation programs for the former child workers. The ultimate goal is to break the cycle of poverty by moving children out of factories and into schools. Efforts to implement RUGMARK were languishing, however, until a group of Indian carpet manufacturers and exporters, concerned about losing access to the U.S. market, teamed up with SACCS, UNICEF, and other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to launch the program. With offices around the world, RUGMARK provides on-site monitoring and certifies that manufacturers are making carpets without child labor. Certified carpets receive a RUGMARK label, assuring consumers that the carpets meet the child-labor-free requirements. The most significant aspect of the program places any children identified in the inspection process into RUGMARK-supported schools. RUGMARK, whose schooling programs also reach out to street children and child workers in nonexport industries, finances the schools from a service fee charged to importers who are licensees of the RUGMARK label. Garment manufacturers in Bangladesh, who depend on the U.S. for 60% of their export market, also reacted. After the U.S.-based Child Labor Coalition called for a boycott of garments from Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) reached an agreement with UNICEF and the ILO. The BGMEA agreed to contribute to a new schooling program (sponsored by the ILO and UNICEF) that would educate all the children transferred from the garment factories. Roughly 10,000 children have been placed in education programs and provided with a small stipend to offset their loss of income. These programs manifest hope that once the child labor problem is identified as a priority, solutions are possible. Advocates for child workers are now hopeful that further progress will be facilitated by a law that was passed in early October 1997 that finally provides a tool for regulating child labor in the global economy. Congress passed an amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 that will now prohibit the U.S. Customs Service from allowing the importation of any product that is made by "forced or indentured child labor." The law will no doubt re-energize efforts to develop programs to shift working children into schools and develop mechanisms for certifying that products are made
[PEN-L:12374] Re: NAFTA
>Where's the "good reason" to oppose NAFTA, etc.? 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
[PEN-L:12227] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
Jim- The bigger picture may change your mind about the protection of the food supply. The U.S. produces and exports the very pesticides that you are worried about reentering the states via Mexican food exports. If we were really worried about protecting the U.S. instead of protecting corporate profits we would ban their production and distribution here. You make it sound like mexican producers are being malicious about their food exports, aiming to harm the U.S. Unfortunatly, these practices also impact the local populations who also eat these foods. Moreover, the growers and workers in the fields are exposed to these dangerous pesticides (imported from the U.S. with safety instructions written in ENGLISH) who die in the fields from overexposure. Agriculture is a very complicated industry, with 5 or so companies controlling well over 1/2 of the global food industry. Many of these operate in Mexico (Cargill, ConAgra, Continental Grain, and Monsanto, just to name a few). So many of these injustices aren't committed by the hands of Mexicans, but by U.S. corporations. Protection of food supplies should be a priority of the U.S. but it isn't NAFTA which is the cause, it is the free reign of our global corporations. Erik Leaver Interhemispheric Resouce Center Jim Cullen What are *good* reasons if not the protection of our food supply? Mexican farmers use pesticides that are banned in the United States and their food safety and environmental protection regulations, where they exist, are largely unenforced (as are their labor laws). The Clinton administration does not even want to include side agreements on labor and the environment in the new round of "free trade" talks. Why should we let foreign producers cut corners, compromise safety regulations and export questionable food into the United States, allowing them to undercut domestic producers who are regulated?
[PEN-L:12228] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
I'm reposting this ezine issue on good and bad reasons to oppose NAFTA and Fast tract. The Progressive Response is a publication of Foreign Policy In Focus, a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. Erik Leaver Interhemispheric Resouce Center THE PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE Vol. 1, No. 4 Tom Barry, editor ***Issues of Debate: Assessing the Impact of NAFTA*** Trade Balance Tactics Opponents of NAFTA, on both the left and the right, cite the current U.S. trade deficit with Mexico as a sign that NAFTA has negatively impacted the United States. It is certainly true that the U.S. now imports more goods from Mexico than it exports to Mexico. In 1996 the United States suffered a $16.2 billion trade deficit with Mexico, whereas in 1993 it experienced a $1.7 billion surplus. Although those concerned about unemployment, poverty, and low wage levels in the United States should examine the state of U.S. trade in their attempt to find the causes of economic instability and job losses at home, they should not adopt the dogma that a trade deficit with Mexico means more unemployment in the United States. When considering the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, it should be recognized that, while Mexico in 1995 and 1996 did export more to the United States than it imported from this country, overall trade with Mexico has expanded substantially since 1993. Despite the economic crisis in Mexico, U.S. exports to Mexico have expanded by more than a third during the first three years of NAFTA. It is not that the United States is exporting less to Mexico than it did before, only that U.S. imports from Mexico have increased faster than U.S. exports to Mexico. It would be wrong to attribute the present status of U.S.-Mexico trade balance primarily to NAFTA for the following reasons: * Overall U.S.-Mexico trade was on the increase even before NAFTA. * In the 1982-1991 period the U.S. experienced a persistent trade deficit with Mexico. * U.S. export growth to Mexico is largely related to the state of the Mexican economy. * The 1994 economic crisis in Mexico--in which consumption dropped 15%--helps explain why U.S. exports to Mexico did not rise as rapidly as previously projected. * The steady GDP increase in the U.S. has created increased demand for goods and supplies, boosting the level of Mexican exports to the United States. Given that the balance of trade between Mexico and the U.S. is closely to the state of the economy in each country, it is likely that the current trade status will change. Consequently, arguments in favor or against NAFTA based primarily on the size of the deficit or surplus are unlikely to stand the test of time. Indeed, as the Mexican economy slowly recuperates, its trade surplus is falling dramatically. The latest figures from Mexico show that its total imports have increased by 27 percent while exports have also increased although more slowly--but still at a healthy rate of 15 percent. Those NAFTA opponents in the United States who point to the 1995-96 trade deficit with Mexico may be left on shaky ground in a year or two as that deficit turns into a surplus. Similarly, more caution is needed in basing one's opposition to NAFTA on reported or calculated job losses. For starters, it should be recognized that the United States has experienced both relatively low unemployment and economic growth since the NAFTA took effect. Opposing NAFTA on the basis of the state of traditional economic indicators--GDP growth, unemployment, trade balance, etc.--is a difficult argument to make, especially at this time of comparatively good economic health in the United States. There are two approaches to the job loss discussion that should be regarded with caution. The first is the facile adoption of a Commerce Department's multiplier that holds that $1 billion in increased exports creates 20,000 new U.S. jobs. By applying this multiplier to the trade deficit (which implies that all Mexican imports take U.S. jobs and that this deficit is due to NAFTA), the Economic Policy Institute concluded that the increase in the U.S. trade deficit since 1993 has cost the United States 251,000 jobs. As noted previously, this approach fails to recognize that, while the United States may be experiencing a deficit with Mexico, its exports continue to increase. Weintraub calls all the manipulations using export/job multipliers "primitive arithmetic," pointing out that 1) merchandise trade is only one part of the balance of payments and does not include the export of U.S. services, 2) imports do not automatically translate into job losses, 3) decreased Mexican exports would decrease Mexico's ability to purchase U.S. products, thereby adversely affecting U.S. jobs, 4) as a global trader, the U.S. should expect deficits with some countries and surpluses with others, and 5) a substantial part of North American trade is not in final products but in components of fina
