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

Weekend Edition
May 26, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Swamp Politics, Trump Style: “Russiagate” Diverts From the Real White House Scandals
Paul Street
It’s Not Gonna Be Okay: the Nauseating Nothingness of Neoliberal Capitalist and Professional Class Politics
Jeffrey St. Clair
The ICEmen Cometh
Ron Jacobs
The Deep State is the State
Pete Dolack
Why Pence Might be Even Worse Than Trump
Patrick Cockburn
We Know What Inspired the Manchester Attack, We Just Won’t Admit It
Thomas Powell
The Dirty Secret of the Korean War
Mark Ashwill
The Fat Lady Finally Sings: Bob Kerrey Quietly Resigns from Fulbright University Vietnam Leadership Position
John Davis
Beyond Hope
Uri Avnery
The Visitation: Trump in Israel
Ralph Nader
The Left/Right Challenge to the Failed “War on Drugs”
Traci Yoder
Free Speech on Campus: a Critical Analysis
Dave Lindorff
Beware the Supporter Scorned: Upstate New York Trump Voters Hit Hard in President’s Proposed 2018 Budget
Daniel Read
“Sickening Cowardice”: Now More Than Ever, Britain’s Theresa May Must be Held to Account on the Plight of Yemen’s Children
Ana Portnoy
Before the Gates: Puerto Rico’s First Bankruptcy Trial
M. Reza Behnam
Rethinking Iran’s Terrorism Designation
Brian Cloughley
Ukraine and the NATO Military Alliance
Josh Hoxie
Pain as a Policy Choice
David Macaray
Stephen Hawking Needs to Keep His Mouth Shut
Ramzy Baroud
Fear as an Obstacle to Peace: Why Are Israelis So Afraid?
Kathleen Wallace
The Bilious Incongruity of Trump’s Toilet
Seth Sandronsky
Temping Now
Alan Barber – Dean Baker
Blue Collar Blues: Manufacturing Falls in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania in April
Jill Richardson
Saving America’s Great Places
Richard Lawless
Are Credit Rating Agencies America’s Secret Fifth Column?
Louis Proyect
Venezuela Reconsidered
Murray Dobbin
The NDP’s Singh and Ashton: Flash Versus Vision
Ron Leighton
Endarkenment: Postmodernism, Identity Politics, and the Attack on Free Speech
Anthony Papa
Drug War Victim: Oklahoma’s Larry Yarbrough to be Freed after 23 Years in Prison
Rev. John Dear
A Call to Mobilize the Nation Over the Next 18 Months
Yves Engler
Why Anti-Zionism and Anti-Jewish Prejudice Have to Do With Each Other
Ish Mishra
Political Underworld and Adventure Journalism
Binoy Kampmark
Roger Moore in Bondage
Rob Seimetz
Measuring Manhoods
Edward Curtin
Sorry, You’re Not Invited
Vern Loomis
Winning the Lottery is a State of Mind
Charles R. Larson
Review: Mary V. Dearborn’s “Ernest Hemingway”
David Yearsley
The Ethos of Mayfest
May 25, 2017
Jennifer Matsui
The Rise of the Alt-Center
Michael Hudson
Another Housing Bubble?
Robert Fisk
Trump Meets the New Leader of the Secular World, Pope Francis
John Laforge
Draft Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Unveiled
Benjamin Dangl
Trump’s Budget Expands War on the Backs of America’s Poor
Alice Donovan
US-Led Air Strikes Killed Record Number of Civilians in Syria
Andrew Moss
The Meaning of Trump’s Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail