[asia-apec 132] WTO -trade op-ed 2 Oct. 1996, Seattle (WA) Post-Intelligencer

[Northwest FOE Office]

Seattle (WA) Post-Intelligencer
Wednesday, 2 October 1996
p. A-14

Scrutiny Uncovers the Hidden Costs of Free Trade

by   David E. Ortman
     Director, NW Office
     Friends of the Earth
     Seattle, WA

     Kathy Fletcher
     Board Member
     Sierra Club
     Seattle, WA

     Fred Felleman
     Northwest Representative
     Ocean Advocates
     Seattle, WA

--------------------

     Is international trade destroying Planet Earth?  New trade
agreements have given giant corporations new rights to trade and
invest globally.  But they have not defined responsibilities to
the communities where those corporations operate.  The result is
predictable:  lowering of environmental protections and wage
levels as Americans lose out to Indonesians, Mexicans and
Malaysians.
     Little wonder a 1993 report Arthur D. Little (a world-wide
consulting firm) warns,  "The Pacific Basin has seen
unprecedented economic transformations by many of its nations. .
.This aggressive economic and industrial development by densely
populated countries, however, has been accompanied by severe
environmental stress and degradation problems.  Intolerable
levels of air pollution and widespread contamination of rivers,
coastal waters, and soil have resulted."
     This was not President Clinton's message during his recent
Northwest trip.  Or the one heard at the closed-door meetings of
the World Trade Organization or over cocktails at corporate-
sponsored receptions, in Seattle last week.
     According to Charlene Barshefsky, acting U.S. trade
representative, the WTO must address such issues "as the
relationship between trade and labor standards and effect of
trade on the environment" (Op-ed, Sept. 24 Post-Intelligencer). 
So why does Barshefsky advocate expanding the power of the WTO to
curtail environmental protections?  For instance, without prior
consultations with the environmental community or interested
members of Congress, the trade representative recently advocated
in closed-door international negotiations that the WTO be given
veto power when the United States and other countries want to ban
imports of hazardous materials under a new international
environmental agreement.  She advocated similar WTO powers over a
new convention to protect the world's forests.
     Barshefsky thinks we should be proud that 30 percent of
Washington's manufacturing jobs are export based.  Due to our
maritime location, trade will always be an element of our
economy.  However, our economic future then lies in the hands of
those outside our region: If China declines to buy Boeing
airplanes, Boeing jobs take a wobble.
     This type of trade-dependent economy is not sustainable. 
Washington apple production is far greater than this region's
demand.  Exporting surplus apples merely props up an agricultural
system that relies too heavily on below-cost government handouts
for water and power, including proposed deepening of the Columbia
River.  Every exported Washington apple means less water in our
rivers, less wild salmon for our region.  Increased trade means
more ship traffic, more risks of collisions and threats to our
coasts and inland waters.
     Despite repeated claims that Alaskan oil would be used
domestically and not exported, the oil companies were successful
in getting the Clinton Administration to lift Alaskan oil export
ban.  This will add to the foreign oil tanker fleet heading for
Puget Sound oil refineries, a fleet with a record of safety and
oil spill problems.  Instead of beefing up protection for
Washington's waters, by requiring tug escorts or a rescue tug at
Neah Bay, the Clinton Administration's Coast Guard appears
content to adopt a voluntary industry-devised tug-boat of
opportunity system after holding a "public meeting" in Seattle on
17 October.  It is a lottery whereby if a tug is near a disabled
ship it can assist, and if it isn't it won't.  When oil hits the
beaches, think of "free trade".
     When elected officials talk about Washington exports they
are silent and refuse to mention our state's fourth biggest
export (1994):.  At $767.9 million, cigarettes represent a bigger
"pass-through" export than seafood.
     Which is healthier, seafood or cigarettes?  The obvious
answer does not appear in trade statistics.  As tobacco companies
are taking a beating with their nicotine delivery products in the
United States, they are working to increase their market
overseas, particularly in Asia.  And Washington's ports are just
as happy to count up containers of cigarettes as they are to
count up containers of seafood.
     Private timber companies such as Weyerhaeuser still export
Washington trees and our own state's Department of Natural
Resources is clamoring to make more money by log exports without
regard to keeping local sawmills open.
     Trade burns on both ends.  Local politicians are big fans of
NikeTown without explaining that Nike makes a killing off of
cheap foreign labor.  Weyerhaeuser and other giant multi-national
timber companies are eyeing Russian far-east trees for export
back to Northwest sawmills, with the potential of introducing
non-native pests.
     Neither the WTO, the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) nor the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation is leading us
to a sustainable future.
     Since the U.S, trade rrepresentative's environmental staff
reportedly did not attend and the U.S., Canada, Japan and
European environmental ministers also appear to have  stayed
home, there is little likelihood that any environmental agenda
was discussed at closed door meetings of the WTO in Seattle. 
Without transparency, the WTO remains a black box of finance
ministers determined to knock environmental laws aside as trade
barriers.
     Global "free" trade is the greatest experiment ever
conducted on our communities, our health and our natural
heritage.  Conservatives used to rail against the unintended
harmful side effects of government "social experiments."  It's
time mainstream politicians woke up to the enormous unintended
harm wrecked by "free" trade.
     At his 50th birthday this summer, President Clinton said
"I'll begin to think about the long-term implications as well as
the consequences of what I do."   We hope he applies this
thinking to trade policy.  If Clinton is reelected, we urge him
to quickly forge a new mainstream consensus to move from free
trade to "responsible trade" -- a policy that keeps markets open
for Washington exporters, but avoids trade's harmful effects by
requiring our trading partners to implement strong,
internationally recognized labor, human rights and environmental
standards.  Responsible trade policies would empower communities
worldwide to protect jobs and resources when giant corporations
come calling.  It would open up decision-making at the office of
the U.S. trade representative to public scrutiny.  And it would
allow Washington to protect wages and the environment -- for our
future.

#####