Kerry On Globalization And The Arab World

We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act.

Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights.

Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people?

But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards.

And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

<>

with concrete ideas, economic strategies, and respect for foreign cultures.

I guess it's just too much to digest and comment on.

:shrug:

he looks better and better.

about Kerry so far I just wonder why he's still not the favorite to win the nomination. What's going on here? :-)

and hopefully will be again. As a fervent Kerry supporter I would say this --
1. (the bitter pill to swallow) -- the campaign was out executed -- particularly in July and August and particularly by the Dean campaign. I think JK's campaign is on much more solid footing now.

2. the IWR vote has not allowed JK to solidy the democratic base.

3. the press ALWAYS wants and WILL CREATE a horse race. They need stories to sell papers. Dean's fundraising and grassroots success is a good story. The Ike II General is a good story. Good policy, organizing in early states and traditional fundraising is not.

So, none of us know what's going to happen. We do know that it will be a close race. I think JK would make the best president. May the best man win.

What standards will John Kerry require Israel to adhere to?

A government that has openly violated numerous U.N. resolutions.

A government that takes Palestinian territory to build barriers.

A government that bulldozes private homes with no opportunity for the victims to defend themselves.

Looks like he has a lot of requirements for Arab nations...what are the requirements for Israel?

Attacking a candidate like Kerry on Israel. For all your misgivings on Kerry, Dean is only worse.

Kerry's the one calling for a two-state peace plan, with firm reprimands for both sides. Dean's the one who's convinced that a wall needs to be erected.

the language of diplomacy, and committed his 'soldiers' faux pas.

I admit Kerry seemed a little over-eager in his attack, but that's what trailers do to front runners. Like Dean would be so dormant after his incendiary antics just a few months earlier, if he was not the wealthy front-runner. But compare that media event, with Dean's actual policies. The wall for instance.

Here is the full quote:

Asked if he would oppose the Israeli policy of selectively killing leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups, Dean said, "I think no one likes to see violence of any kind."

But he also said that "there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=38692&mesg_id=41087

…
On whether the United Statesis too biased in favor of Israel:

"I used the word 'evenhanded,' which apparently means something in the pro-Israel community that it does not mean to ordinary people's ears. I think I've made it very clear that my position is not any different from Bill Clinton's. We've always been a strong ally of Israel; we'll continue to be a strong ally of Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

"But that you have to have the trust of both sides at the negotiating table, and only an American president can bring peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. ...

"I support a two-state solution. I believe the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would accept a two-state solution.

"If I were president tomorrow, I would pick up the phone and call Bill Clinton and ask him to be my emissary to the Middle East. He had the most success in trying to bring those people together. ... We need the high-profile involvement of the United States."
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-10-16-dean-excerpts-usat_x.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=170660

Carter Prods Bush on Mideast Peace Plan

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration must push harder - and be evenhanded - to revive sagging peace hopes in the Middle East, former President Carter said Monday.
…
"The United States is not being evenhanded," Carter said by telephone from his home in Plains, Ga. "You have to have a mediator, willing to negotiate freely with both sides, and equally firmly with both sides."
…
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030915/D7TJ31001.html

Only candidate who's not is DK I think. And remember, Kerry's not entirely satisfied with the current NAFTA agreements. He, like all Dems, has called for greater labour and environmental protection clauses, and remember something called the Kerry amendment? It failed, but at least he made an effort.

…
While U.S. unemployment improved in June, Dean said it’s still at a nine-year high and ignores the underemployed, which he pegged at 6 percent.

“These are people who had $50,000 good jobs and now they are making $25,000 or $30,000, and they have two of them, in some cases,” Dean said. “I am tired of having an economy where our best jobs are shifted elsewhere in the world.’’

Dean fans made up a thick portion of the crowd, often turning Dean’s 25-minute stump speech into a rally of revival proportions with interrupted calls of “amen’’ and “yes, yes.’’
…
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=377&ArticleID=85948
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=11856&mesg_id=11856
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=124665&mesg_id=124665

…
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, 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 in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
…
HOWARD DEAN: What I would say is, we've gone the first mile. The first decade has worked, for exactly the reasons you say. I don't disagree with the premise of the free traders. I had this discussion with Bob Rubin, and I said, "Here's the problem. 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." He said, "You're totally wrong. I can't disagree with you more." I said, "How would you address the problem?" I haven't heard back. You have to deal with this problem. It's a serious problem.

JOE KLEIN: What if they say no?

HOWARD DEAN: Then I'd say, "Fine, that's the end of free trade."

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

HOWARD DEAN: Yes.

JOE KLEIN: So you'd be in favor of tariffs at that point.

HOWARD DEAN: 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. I'm serious.
…
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=46131&mesg_id=46131&page=

when he decided to court labor earlier this year. But, then he made a few gaffes like saying that all countries had to adhe to the same environmental standards, when many countries don't even have the economy to apply those standards. We have to help them get to that place, but can't impose unrealistic terms right now.

Kerry helped craft the Kyoto Accord, so i expect him to have good intentions in that area.

the kind of worker's rights and environmental provisions that we're fighting for:

Labor provisions:
For the first time in a U.S. trade agreement, rather than in a side agreement, the Jordan FTA includes in the body of the agreement key provisions that reconfirm that free trade and the protection of the rights of workers can go hand in hand. These provisions reaffirm the parties support for the core labor standards adopted in the 1998 International Labor Organization s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The countries also reaffirmed their belief that is inappropriate to lower standards to encourage trade, and agreed in principle to strive to improve their labor standards. Each side agreed to enforce its own existing labor laws and to settle disagreements on enforcement of these laws through a dispute settlement process.

Environmental provisions:
Again, for the first time in the body of a free trade agreement, the Jordan FTA includes a separate set of substantive provisions on trade and the environment. Specifically, each country agreed to avoid relaxing environmental laws to encourage trade. The United States and Jordan affirmed their belief in the principle of sustainable development, and agreed to strive to maintain high levels of environmental protection and to improve their environmental laws. Each side also agreed to a provision on effective enforcement of its environmental laws, and to settle disagreements on enforcement of these laws through a dispute settlement process. Both countries are conducting environmental reviews, which were extremely useful in developing some of the provisions of the agreement.

The United States and Jordan also agreed on an environmental cooperation initiative, which establishes a U.S.-Jordanian Joint Forum on Environmental Technical Cooperation for ongoing discussion of environmental priorities, and identifies environmental quality and enforcement as areas of initial focus. The environmental elements of the FTA package also include language on transparency and public input, and on environmental exceptions. Finally, the FTA includes a "win/win" initiative -- an initiative that is good for both business and the environment by eliminating tariffs on a number of environmental goods and technologies and liberalizing Jordanian restrictions on certain environmental services.
http://www.ustr.gov/releases/2000/10/factsheet.html
http://www.ustr.gov/regions/eu-med/middleeast/US-JordanFTA.shtml

IMHO, he's not going to win any southern states (and he'll do poorly in the mid-west, also) on a platform of free-trade when that is the reason that factories are closing in those states.

And that's not even mentioning the white collar workers who are being replaced by workers in India.

It doesn't really matter what's in the trade agreement, all that matters is what soundbite you use to sell it?

Perhaps we should back the 'Healthy Forests' initiative. It has a nice ring to it. Why bother reading the fine print? 'Clear Skies'? Who can argue with that? After all, everything you need to know about a book, you can find on the cover.

The UN condemned Israel's construction of their security wall encroaching on Palestinian land last night. The entire world voted against it Senator Kerry, with the exception of guess who, Senator Kerry? Israel and the US (and Micronesia and the Marshall Islands).

They got you by the short hairs again, Senator Kerry and again you display no ethical or courageous political leadership in view of addressing the realities of the rogue state of Israel.

His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz.

I agree with the plan that both Edwards and Kerry have developed to deal with Free Trade. Globalization is a real. Pulling out of NAFTA and the WTO, as Dean wants to do, is swimming against the current. We have to acccept the way the world marketplace has changed and we need to mold it to work with our standards. Edwards's plan, which calls for tax breaks for companies that keep jobs in the US and a loss of incentives for companies who move elsewhere, is the best way for our economy to move with the forces of globalization, while still trying to maintain the standards that we think are acceptable.