FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

CAFTA’s Bloodtrails

by DAVID MACARAY

On Wednesday, April 23, U.S. and Guatemalan labor groups filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor,  changing the workers’ rights provisions of CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) are being violated.  The petitioners allege that union members in Guatemala are not only being routinely harassed, threatened and intimidated, but that  union leaders have been assassinated.

Since 2006, when Guatemala became a trading partner in CAFTA (whose other signatories include the U.S., Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Nicaragua), eight trade unionists have been killed.  The most brazen murder occurred in January, 2007, when Pedro Zamora, the charismatic president of a port union, was gunned down in front of his home by a carload of assailants in broad daylight.

Five separate complaints were filed on Wednesday, alleging violations against members of six unions affiliated with agriculture, seaport shipping and textile industries.  The complaints seek punitive damages from the Guatemalan government—a remedy “guaranteed” by CAFTA’s workers’ protection language.  These fines can run as high as $15 million per year.  As to the prospect of the Guatemalan government actually being found guilty and having to fork over the money, no one is holding their breath.

There have been dozens of formal complaints filed by labor organizations and human rights groups since 1994 (when the first of these agreements was implemented). Not a single one has resulted in sanctions against the alleged offenders.  After conducting what they described as “thorough investigations,” the U.S. Department of Labor announced that it had found no violations.  None.  In other words, so far, every trading partner in the world has a perfect, unblemished human rights record.  What were the odds?

It’s time we asked ourselves, Which of those so-called “free trade” agreements have actually fulfilled their ambitious promises to recognize workers’ rights and protect the environment?  Which countries, if any, have made an effort to live up to the ambitious, idealistic language contained in those provisions?  By “live up to,” we mean provide evidence that the government is willing to vigorously prosecute businesses who are in violation.

It’s also time that we acknowledged a simple, discouraging fact:  In countries where labor unions are violently opposed by government and business interests, a treaty isn’t likely to make much difference.  Businesses and their government cronies will find a way to get around the wording.  Consider:  Have Mexican labor unions flourished under NAFTA?  Have Honduran labor unions flourished under CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement)?  Have Latin American workers at the bottom of the economic ladder benefited significantly from “free trade”?

In truth, whether NAFTA, CAFTA or the proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, it was a consortium of financial and manufacturing interests who initially pushed for these deals, and who did so for reasons that were not only largely incompatible with workers’ rights and environmental protection, but, in many cases, in direct contradiction to them.

While we’re at it, we need to acknowledge another fact:  These trade agreements were glorified money grabs, plain and simple.  They were business deals.  As for the “human rights” and environmental provisions spelled out in their language, those were merely palliatives, a means of getting them approved by Congress.  Does anyone really believe that maintaining the viability of labor unions even entered into the equation?

Of course, what you hear from free trade proponents is that, imperfect as they may be, these trade agreements are the only means we have of fixing a bad situation.  Without them, the U.S. would have no legal right to intervene in a country’s commerce.  Indeed, without the existence of CAFTA, that formal complaint filed last Wednesday would not have been possible.  According to free trade advocates, these trade agreements offer the U.S. the “human rights” leverage it never before had.

While this argument may be true in theory, in the real world it’s not only false and misleading, it’s insulting.  If the respective governments (including the U.S.) are unwilling to enforce the provisions of the law — despite the “opportunity” for interested parties to file their petitions — those provisions are all but meaningless.

Worse, being on the books in the form it is, this language implies that the situation has improved and that the necessary steps are being taken, which is untrue.  This argument is also amusing, in that it exposes the ways in which American politicians and businessmen cherry-pick their positions.

Take the anti-Communist hard-liners, for instance.  They objected to the U.S. signing arms limitation treaties with the Soviet Union on the grounds that the Soviet leaders  couldn’t be trusted to uphold their end of the bargain.  But these are the same people who are falling over themselves trying to get these free-trade agreements ratified, even when there is zero evidence that the signatory governments have any intention of adhering to the human rights requirements.

Similarly, many of these free trade fundamentalists (“We need to engage these regimes, not snub them!”) are the same people, the very same zealous holdouts, who, for decades, have opposed lifting the trade embargo with Cuba.  Apparently, those snappy, “let’s engage these regimes” arguments didn’t apply when it came to Fidel Castro.  Go figure.

We need to drop the pretense and get real.  Why should we expect a coalition of big business and government to consider giving labor unions a fair shake, particularly in Latin American countries, where (as it once was in the U.S.) government-sanctioned violence against unions is standard procedure?

We have to stop feigning shock and disappointment when these treaty provisions are violated.  That certain countries continue to terrorize labor unions should not come as a surprise.  The only “surprise” is that an outside observer would honestly believe these governments ever had the slightest intention of complying . . . or that the U.S. would risk throwing a wrench in the works by punishing a valued trading partner.

DAVID MACARAY, a Los Angeles playwright and writer, was president and chief contract negotiator of the Assn. of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, Local 672, from 1989 to 2000. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net

 

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows.  He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

April 25, 2017
Russell Mokhiber
It’s Impossible to Support Single-Payer and Defend Obamacare
Nozomi Hayase
Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech
Robert Fisk
The Madder Trump Gets, the More Seriously the World Takes Him
Giles Longley-Cook
Trump the Gardener
Bill Quigley
Major Challenges of New Orleans Charter Schools Exposed at NAACP Hearing
Jack Random
Little Fingers and Big Egos
Stanley L. Cohen
Dissent on the Lower East Side: the Post-Political Condition
Stephen Cooper
Conscientious Justice-Loving Alabamians, Speak Up!
Michael J. Sainato
Did the NRA Play a Role in the Forcing the Resignation of Surgeon General?
David Swanson
The F-35 and the Incinerating Ski Slope
Binoy Kampmark
Mike Pence in Oz
Peter Paul Catterall
Green Nationalism? How the Far Right Could Learn to Love the Environment
George Wuerthner
Range Riders: Making Tom Sawyer Proud
Clancy Sigal
It’s the Pits: the Miner’s Blues
Robert K. Tan
Abe is Taking Japan Back to the Bad Old Fascism
April 24, 2017
Mike Whitney
Is Mad Dog Planning to Invade East Syria?    
John Steppling
Puritan Jackals
Robert Hunziker
America’s Tale of Two Cities, Redux
David Jaffe
The Republican Party and the ‘Lunatic Right’
John Davis
No Tomorrow or Fashion-Forward
Patrick Cockburn
Treating Mental Health Patients as Criminals
Jack Dresser
An Accelerating Palestine Rights Movement Faces Uncertain Direction
George Wuerthner
Diet for a Warming Planet
Lawrence Wittner
Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?
Colin Todhunter
From Earth Day to the Monsanto Tribunal, Capitalism on Trial
Paul Bentley
Teacher’s Out in Front
Franklin Lamb
A Post-Christian Middle East With or Without ISIS?
Kevin Martin
We Just Paid our Taxes — are They Making the U.S. and the World Safer?
Erik Mears
Education Reformers Lowered Teachers’ Salaries, While Promising to Raise Them
Binoy Kampmark
Fleeing the Ratpac: James Packer, Gambling and Hollywood
Weekend Edition
April 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty
Paul Street
Donald Trump: Ruling Class President
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Dude, Where’s My War?
Andrew Levine
If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em
Paul Atwood
Why Does North Korea Want Nukes?
Robert Hunziker
Trump and Global Warming Destroy Rivers
Vijay Prashad
Turkey, After the Referendum
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, the DOJ and Julian Assange
CJ Hopkins
The President Formerly Known as Hitler
Steve Reyna
Replacing Lady Liberty: Trump and the American Way
Lucy Steigerwald
Stop Suggesting Mandatory National Service as a Fix for America’s Problems
Robert Fisk
It is Not Just Assad Who is “Responsible” for the Rise of ISIS
John Laforge
“Strike Two” Against Canadian Radioactive Waste Dumpsite Proposal
Norman Solomon
The Democratic Party’s Anti-Bernie Elites Have a Huge Stake in Blaming Russia
Andrew Stewart
Can We Finally Get Over Bernie Sanders?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail