US-Peru Free Trade Deal shares basic flaws of NAFTA and CAFTA

With the Senate set to vote in the upcoming weeks on H.R.3688, a deal that, passed by the House in September, would promote the opening up of trade between the US and Peru, free trade has emerged as a heated issue amongst Democratic candidates. Only Hillary and Obama have so far announced that they will vote in favor of the bill. As her confusing answer to the question in last week's debate on her support for NAFTA revealed, Hillary has felt somewhat tied to any trade pacts born out of NAFTA's legacy; her husband was its main architect in his first term as president. Obama, who voted against CAFTA in 2005 and has publicly condemned NAFTA, says that H.R.3688 represents a breakthrough in ensuring that freer trade doesn't imply turning a blind-eye to basic labor principles and environmental safety standards. So, while you could make the argument that their hearts and the hearts of the 109 Democratic Reps. that already voted in favor of it are in the right place, many, mostly those in the middle class, would disagree.

Many see the deal as a way for Democrats--who took control of Congress last year promising to make trade fairer for poorer countries--to draw attention to what they see as a direct response to their calls for healthier trade practices, without losing the backing of their many gun ho free-trade supporting constituents. Joshua Holland over at Altnernet is convinced that more than any average American, big corporations are likely to be left smiling if the deal gets passed by the US Senate.

I asked Todd Tucker, research director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, who really stands to benefit from the deal. He didn't hesitate before rattling off a dozen multinationals including Citigroup, Occidental Petroleum and Wal-Mart, all of whom, according to Tucker, have "put their full might into getting the Peru deal passed, including showering millions in congressional campaign donations since January alone." Tucker told me their wish list includes "privatized social security systems for Citi, rainforest-destroying oil extraction for Occidental, and a push to Wal-Mart's efforts to buy out Peru's retail sector, just as they did in Central America just days after Bush signed [the Central American Free Trade Agreement]." In addition, General Mills, (and the Grocery Manufacturers Association PAC, which supports it) wants the deal to go through because it grows most of its canned veggies in Peru (decimating onion, asparagus and pea farmers in the United States) and is now moving its processing facilities down there. Citibank, along with other financial services firms, wants the deal because it would allow the firm to sue the Peruvian government for damages if progressive activists succeed in reversing a disastrous social security privatization scheme that's screwed over millions of Peruvian retirees.

I understand the US-Peru bill is an improvement from the similar NAFTA and CAFTA deals. However, if the working class, those Americans who'll most likely feel the brunt of such a deal, are against it, politicians should be willing to listen. If for nothing else, they should find out why and try to do what they can to minimize the negative impact the deal will have on the very same people the Democratic Party claims to be defending.