Howard Dean on Free Trade Former VT Governor; Former Democratic Candidate for President

Sub-sections under Free Trade:
• China
• Other issues under Free Trade

We ought to change NAFTA-globalization only halfway done

A: We ought to change NAFTA. We’ve only done half the job with globalization. You’ve globalized the rights of big corporations to do business anywhere in the country, but what we now need to do is globalize the rights of workers, labor unions, environmentalists and human rights. If you do that, you raise the standard of living in other countries. And what happens is our jobs stop going away because the cost of production goes up.

Enforceable & enforced labor and environmental standards

A: I want strong, enforceable trade agreements and a trade system bound by clear, continually improving rules. I will push for solid, enforceable labor and environmental standards in all existing and future trade agreements. I will vigorously enforce the agreements we enter into and defend U.S. trade laws when our competitors challenge them.

We’ve globalized corporations; now globalize worker rights

DEAN: There’s no reason we can’t do both. NAFTA and the WTO only globalized the rights of multinational corporations, but they did not globalize the rights of workers. They are not going to globalize human rights, environmental rights, the right to organize. That needs to happen. And if it doesn’t happen, NAFTA and the WTO simply aren’t going to work. Right now, we’re exporting jobs.

We need to have a level playing field. We need to have the same kinds of environmental protections, labor protections, human rights protections and worker protections if we’re going to have open borders. That will not disadvantage exports.

Globalization is here to stay, but the rules can be changed

A: Globalization is here to stay whether we like it or not, but the rules for globalization are not. Both NAFTA and the WTO help large multinational corporations but ignore the needs for the people who work for them. In order to make globalization work we also have to globalize worker protection, labor rights, environmental rights and human rights. Free trade won’t work under the present circumstances.

I support NAFTA & WTO-but they need revision

KERRY: Yes, it is fair, because Gov. Dean has said very specifically that we should not trade with countries until they have labor and environment standards that are equal to the US. That means we would trade with no countries. It is a policy for shutting the door. It’s either a policy for shutting the door, if you believe it, or it’s a policy of just telling people what they want to hear.

DEAN: I supported NAFTA, I supported the WTO. We benefited in Vermont from trade. But in the Midwest, our manufacturing jobs are hemorrhaging. We have to go back and revise every single trade agreement that we have to include labor standards, environmental standards & human rights standards. If we don’t, the trade policy that we seek to help globalize and help workers around the country & the world is going to fail.

Support NAFTA & WTO with level labor standards

DEAN: My position on trade is pretty clear. I supported NAFTA, I supported the WTO. However, the problem is that these trade agreements are skewed toward multinational corporations. They benefit them, but they do not have equal protection for the people who work either in this country or elsewhere.

My position on labor standards [is that] eventually we have to have the same labor standards through every trade agreement. The place to start is international labor organization standards adhered to and enforced by every one of our trading partners, but ultimately we have to have exactly the same labor standards everywhere.

Free trade based on labor and environmental standards

Trade tariffs to enforce labor & enviro standards

A: We’ve gone the first mile. I don’t disagree with the premise of the free traders. But we need an emerging middle class in these countries, and we’re not getting one. So now is the time to have labor and environmental standards attached to trade agreements.

Q: What if they say no?

A: Then I’d say, “Fine, that’s the end of free trade.”

Q: What do you mean, that’s the end of free trade? Then we slap tariffs on these countries?

A: Yes.

Q: So you’d be in favor of tariffs at that point.

A: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can’t get people to observe human rights, and say that we’re going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don’t think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We’re enabling that to happen.

Free trade is in our long-term national security interest

The reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It’s defense and foreign policy. A middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn’t harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it’s a country that does not go to war. So that’s why trade is really in our long term interest. So far NAFTA has transferred industrial capacity, but we haven’t transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class.

The trade union movement built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class. America is the strongest country on earth because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. Working people in this country feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

WTO should care about human rights

Free trade must equal fair trade

Unfortunately, our free trade policies have also had the effect of hollowing out our industrial capacity, and most worrisome, undermining our own middle class. All through this country, including in Vermont, I’ve seen factories move to China and Mexico, leaving American workers to learn new skills & earn lower wages.

Free trade must equal fair trade. We are subsidizing the sometimes awful environmental practices of our trading partners, and we are subsidizing the profits of multinational corporations by not having international labor standards. If free trade allows General Motors to set up a plant in Mexico, free trade should allow the UAW to organize that plant under conditions similar to those in the US. This isn’t wage parity; I am asking for shared ground rules.

We need China trade as a national security issue

DEAN: I did not vote for NAFTA or the WTO, because I have never served in Congress. But I did support China’s entry into the WTO in 1999 because I believed it was an issue for national security. I believe in constructive engagement. That doesn’t mean these agreements don’t need to be changed. We have stood up for multinational corporations in these agreements, but we have not stood up for workers’ rights, environmental rights and human rights. And until we do, trade doesn’t work.

GEPHARDT: Look, Howard, you were for NAFTA. You came to the signing ceremony. You were for the China agreement. It’s one thing to talk the talk, it’s another thing to walk the walk. We’ve got to get labor and environment in these treaties, when the treaties are before the Congress. That’s when it counts.

Use trade as basis for constructive engagement

Use trade to enforce morality on China

A: We already have trade in the door. Countries aren’t going to say, “No, too bad for you. Go ahead and put up tariffs” -- they’re already in the door. I don’t think my support of NAFTA 10 years ago was a bad thing. We’ve got them in the door. They’re already seeing the benefits of trade. Now we’re going to say to them, “Okay, now is the time that workers’ rights and environmental rights matter. You have a choice. You can go back to the way it was if you want to.“ I don’t think there are many governments that are going to take us up on that.

Q: So we can tell China to control environmental problems?

A: We’re not telling China to control environmental problems. What we’re saying is, if you want to do business with us, we do have some morals, and we intend to enforce our view of the world.

Develop an open North American energy market.

The Northeast International Committee on Energy (NICE) was established by the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in 1978 to monitor and act upon common energy issues in the New England-/ Eastern Canadian region. In recent years, NICE has been paying particular attention to significant developments in the areas of electric restructuring, natural gas developments, and resource and infrastructure development. At the 25th Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers held in Halifax, Nova Scotia in July 2000, Resolution 25-12 was adopted directing NICE to:
• continue to monitor developments in the energy markets;
• adopt a letter to then-Secretary Richardson of the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) recommending that the DOE work with the NICE and states and provinces to maintain an open North American energy market and clarify the treatment of large-scale hydro-electric power under federal restructuring legislation;
• collaborate with the NEG/ECP Committee on the Environment, the Province of New Brunswick and the Premier’s Round Table on Environment and Economy to conduct a workshop to examine global warming issues in our region, evaluate the conclusions of the workshop and present a recommended action plan to the 2001 annual meeting of the NEG/ECP;
• examine ways to encourage energy conservation, demand-side management programs, energy efficiency the development of new energy technologies;
• continue to define and develop a graphical computerized energy database for the region;
• report back on key jurisdictional energy issues in the region, including the region’s energy storage capacity and infrastructure.

Foster globalization with New England & Eastern Canada.