Obama Needs to Take a Stand on Trade
When President Obama attends the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) meeting (or the more innocuous sounding, North American Leaders Summit) in Guadalajara next week he has the opportunity to keep some campaign promises.
The SPP has been referred to as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on steroids. For good reason.
As a candidate Obama was a strong opponent of NAFTA. During a primary debate in Cleveland Obama said : "I will make sure that we renegotiate... I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage...". He noted that NAFTA had outsourced millions of jobs, had weak provisions for protection of the environment and labor standards.
Now, it seems he has "softened quite a bit, to put it mildly", according to former US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci.
Candidate Obama said, in an Obama Administration, meetings would be conducted with transparency and the active involvement of citizens, labor, the private sector and non-governmental organizations. So why hasn't he scrapped SPP?
At least NAFTA was debated in Congress, SPP is a strictly closed door meeting between the Administrations of the US, Canada, Mexico and the North American Competitiveness Council.
No citizen input, no governmental oversight, just the "Three Amigos" and big business interests.
Unless he has completely softened on the tough talk of his candidacy he must end SPP. SPP, it seems, could just be a clever way to follow through on the provisions of NAFTA that were launched in 1994.
"Harmonization", a key component of SPP, will lower the standards that protect the environment, the safety of our food and our health.
Other than increasing the profits of corporations, the hopped up, secretly negotiated SPP offers no benefit to the average American. Either in security or prosperity. We have seen the emergence of the Swine flu, numerous food safety violations and the never ending loss of jobs.
Mexico has seen its economy collapse, a cycle of increasing violence, militarization and drug trafficking. Small farmers have been pushed off their land and into abject poverty. Now big business and the Three Amigos offer them more of the same only faster? So who is benefiting? Canada?
Hardly, Canadians have never liked NAFTA, and the best SPP can offer them is increased mining of the Alberta Tar Sands to fuel the US appetite for oil and more armed Transportation and Security Administration officers on Canadian soil.
President Obama has given enough ground on his campaign promises; on ending torture, on single payer health care, on ending the war. It's time to bring trade into the light of day, like he promised.
A partnership should be built on more than bureaucrats and fat cat businessmen, it needs citizen involvement and approval.
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio perhaps stated it best, "We need to change the nature of our trade agreements. I hope this new president will lead us in that direction-- toward more democracy and less exploitation. We'll see."
Yes we'll see.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
When President Obama attends the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) meeting (or the more innocuous sounding, North American Leaders Summit) in Guadalajara next week he has the opportunity to keep some campaign promises.
The SPP has been referred to as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on steroids. For good reason.
As a candidate Obama was a strong opponent of NAFTA. During a primary debate in Cleveland Obama said : "I will make sure that we renegotiate... I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage...". He noted that NAFTA had outsourced millions of jobs, had weak provisions for protection of the environment and labor standards.
Now, it seems he has "softened quite a bit, to put it mildly", according to former US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci.
Candidate Obama said, in an Obama Administration, meetings would be conducted with transparency and the active involvement of citizens, labor, the private sector and non-governmental organizations. So why hasn't he scrapped SPP?
At least NAFTA was debated in Congress, SPP is a strictly closed door meeting between the Administrations of the US, Canada, Mexico and the North American Competitiveness Council.
No citizen input, no governmental oversight, just the "Three Amigos" and big business interests.
Unless he has completely softened on the tough talk of his candidacy he must end SPP. SPP, it seems, could just be a clever way to follow through on the provisions of NAFTA that were launched in 1994.
"Harmonization", a key component of SPP, will lower the standards that protect the environment, the safety of our food and our health.
Other than increasing the profits of corporations, the hopped up, secretly negotiated SPP offers no benefit to the average American. Either in security or prosperity. We have seen the emergence of the Swine flu, numerous food safety violations and the never ending loss of jobs.
Mexico has seen its economy collapse, a cycle of increasing violence, militarization and drug trafficking. Small farmers have been pushed off their land and into abject poverty. Now big business and the Three Amigos offer them more of the same only faster? So who is benefiting? Canada?
Hardly, Canadians have never liked NAFTA, and the best SPP can offer them is increased mining of the Alberta Tar Sands to fuel the US appetite for oil and more armed Transportation and Security Administration officers on Canadian soil.
President Obama has given enough ground on his campaign promises; on ending torture, on single payer health care, on ending the war. It's time to bring trade into the light of day, like he promised.
A partnership should be built on more than bureaucrats and fat cat businessmen, it needs citizen involvement and approval.
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio perhaps stated it best, "We need to change the nature of our trade agreements. I hope this new president will lead us in that direction-- toward more democracy and less exploitation. We'll see."
Yes we'll see.
When President Obama attends the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) meeting (or the more innocuous sounding, North American Leaders Summit) in Guadalajara next week he has the opportunity to keep some campaign promises.
The SPP has been referred to as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on steroids. For good reason.
As a candidate Obama was a strong opponent of NAFTA. During a primary debate in Cleveland Obama said : "I will make sure that we renegotiate... I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage...". He noted that NAFTA had outsourced millions of jobs, had weak provisions for protection of the environment and labor standards.
Now, it seems he has "softened quite a bit, to put it mildly", according to former US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci.
Candidate Obama said, in an Obama Administration, meetings would be conducted with transparency and the active involvement of citizens, labor, the private sector and non-governmental organizations. So why hasn't he scrapped SPP?
At least NAFTA was debated in Congress, SPP is a strictly closed door meeting between the Administrations of the US, Canada, Mexico and the North American Competitiveness Council.
No citizen input, no governmental oversight, just the "Three Amigos" and big business interests.
Unless he has completely softened on the tough talk of his candidacy he must end SPP. SPP, it seems, could just be a clever way to follow through on the provisions of NAFTA that were launched in 1994.
"Harmonization", a key component of SPP, will lower the standards that protect the environment, the safety of our food and our health.
Other than increasing the profits of corporations, the hopped up, secretly negotiated SPP offers no benefit to the average American. Either in security or prosperity. We have seen the emergence of the Swine flu, numerous food safety violations and the never ending loss of jobs.
Mexico has seen its economy collapse, a cycle of increasing violence, militarization and drug trafficking. Small farmers have been pushed off their land and into abject poverty. Now big business and the Three Amigos offer them more of the same only faster? So who is benefiting? Canada?
Hardly, Canadians have never liked NAFTA, and the best SPP can offer them is increased mining of the Alberta Tar Sands to fuel the US appetite for oil and more armed Transportation and Security Administration officers on Canadian soil.
President Obama has given enough ground on his campaign promises; on ending torture, on single payer health care, on ending the war. It's time to bring trade into the light of day, like he promised.
A partnership should be built on more than bureaucrats and fat cat businessmen, it needs citizen involvement and approval.
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio perhaps stated it best, "We need to change the nature of our trade agreements. I hope this new president will lead us in that direction-- toward more democracy and less exploitation. We'll see."
Yes we'll see.