Corporations sans borders

With the success of the North American Free Trade Act far from certain, especially for states such as Maine, President Clinton is trying to force through an expanded version of the trade pact on the same fast track that NAFTA used. Congress should turn this express train into a local, placing the democratic process before the rush for promised wealth.

Five or six years ago, NAFTA was a fairly mysterious item. One set of economists predicted it would greatly invigorate the nation’s economy; another set promised financial ruin. Though the United States, Canada and Mexico are still early in the free-trade process, it seems clear that NAFTA is not going to provide any economic miracles or drag the nation into an economic abyss. Rather, it might provide some more wealth overall without especially helping manufacturing or textile states. It has also emphasized — for good and ill — the disparity in workplace safety and environmental laws between this country and elsewhere, where labor costs are considerably lower.

The most important lesson since NAFTA, however, is that the fine print matters. Guidelines for job security, worker retraining, working conditions, border inspections and environmental controls, among a thousand other details, are what make the difference between a useful trade pact and a corporate whitewash.

The president’s demand for fast-track approval, in which Congress could either agree to or reject the trade treaty but not alter it, asks members of Congress to ignore the fine print. Congress, which should be held accountable for U.S. involvement in such deals, need not roll over so easily. No matter the care that experts from various countries used in assembling the complex trade agreements, its provisions need public exposure. The people who have the greatest opportunity to be hurt by it need the greatest opportunity to comment on it.

The new agreement, with congressional approval, would expand free trade to Latin American countries, including a long-planned expansion to Chile. It comes as the United States still is getting used to the global economy brought about by the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and could be followed by free-trade agreements in the Pacific Rim.

Still being negotiated through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is something called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Already, the MAI’s blinding complexity and invitation for international abuse has set watchdog groups to howling, with justification. MAI could make every nation a most-favored trading partner and forbid states from interferring with business conducted within their own borders. It may also, according to Public Citizen, allow for the first time corporations to sue nations for failing to meet MAI terms.

The cumulative effect of tearing down trading walls the world over is not yet known. That makes a thorough debate and a willingness to amend treaties a healthy approach for the United States in its global dealings. Save fast tracks for the railroads.