ES EN
Menu Menú

Publications

Publicaciones

Search Publications

Buscar publicaciones

Filters Filtro de búsqueda

to a

clear selection Quitar los filtros

none

Article Artículo

The Rich Like "Free Trade" Because It Is Not Free Trade

Brendan Nyhan had an interesting piece in the NYT's Upshot section in which he discussed how "free trade" policies get pushed by presidents and approved by Congress even though most middle income and lower income people are opposed to them. Nyhan refers to research showing that wealthier people overwhelmingly support "free trade," and politicians are likely to act in ways that reflect their views even when this means going against the majority.

While this is interesting and important research, it misses an important part of the story. Our trade agreements have not been about liberalizing trade in all areas, as Nyhan asserts. While trade policy has been quite explicitly designed to put U.S. manufacturing workers in direct competition with low paid workers in the developing world, it has largely left in place or even increased the protections that keep doctors and other highly paid professsionals from other countries from working in the United States.

Trade theory predicts enormous economic gains from allowing freer trade in these professionals, but because trade policy is designed largely by and for wealthy people, removing barriers to foreign professionals working in the United States rarely gets on the agenda in trade deals. Unfortunately it also doesn't get mentioned in the media's discussion of the issue either.

Trade deals also increase protections in the form of patent and copyright protection. These are direct transfers of money from the bulk of the population to those who benefit from these royalties and licensing fee. Most of the people in the latter category are wealthy.

The fact that the trade deals do not conform to economists' definitions of "free trade," but are instead designed to redistribute income upward, likely explains much of the hostility of low and middle income people to "free trade." It is worth pointing out, that in responding to these polls, the public is not referring to the economic concept of "free trade," but rather real world policies that have little to do with the economic concept. It is understandable that the politicians pushing the trade deals would use the economic concept of "free trade" to promote their deals, it is less clear why reporters and commentators would adopt the same approach.

Dean Baker / May 29, 2015

Article Artículo

Haiti

Latin America and the Caribbean

World

Differing Opinions on Changes to the Electoral Schedule

Last week, in a conversation with Haitian journalists in Washington, D.C., Thomas Adams, the Haiti special coordinator at the State Department, said the U.S. would be in favor of Haiti holding two elections this year instead of the planned three. The electoral timetable announced in March by the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) called for the first round of legislative elections to be held August 9, followed by a first-round presidential election and second round of legislative elections on October 25. Finally, the second round of the presidential election and local elections would be held in late December.

In an interview this past weekend with Jacqueline Charles of the Miami Herald, Adams explained:

there’s some discussion about going to two rounds of elections instead of three. The pros and cons of that, I think they’ll decide fairly soon whether they want to do that. That would give a little more time to the CEP and it would also save some money if they want to go that route. That is an option.

Moving the first round of the legislative election to the same day as the presidential election would save an estimated $30 million, according to Adams. But while the proposed changes have some support from political parties in Haiti, the CEP has remained steadfast that it is determined to follow the electoral calendar that was announced.

According to Alterpresse, Alix Richard, the vice president of the FUSION party commented that the party had “always sought the election in two stages,” and recommended a discussion between the executive, the CEP and political parties to reach a decision. Both the Patriotic Movement of the Democratic Opposition (MOPOD) – the party of former presidential candidate Mirlande Manigat – and the Organization of People in Struggle (OPL) refused to comment directly on the proposal, saying that they were ready for elections at any time. However Pierre Étienne Saveur, director of OPL, criticized the manner in which Adam’s comments were received. He said that his recommendations would have been better served going through diplomatic channels as opposed to a public statement to the press.

Moise Jean Charles, of the opposition platform Pitit Dessalines, came out in favor of the reduction to two elections. Charles also noted that the change would save the CEP millions of dollars – the electoral body is currently facing a funding shortfall to the tune of over $20 million. Donor countries, including the U.S., have stated that they are ready to provide additional financing, but are waiting for steps to be taken by the Haitian government and electoral council before any disbursements are made.

Jake Johnston / May 28, 2015

Article Artículo

Haiti

Latin America and the Caribbean

World

UN Points to MINUSTAH as “Model of Accountability” for Sexual Abuse Cases

The New York Times reported Monday on the lack of accountability for sexual abuse on the part of U.N. peacekeepers around the world, focusing on recent allegations that French soldiers “forced boys to perform oral sex on them” in the Central African Republic. The article notes that the U.N. “does not have the legal authority to prosecute or punish a country’s soldiers,” and cites a recent internal audit that found that despite the organization’s “zero-tolerance” policy for sexual abuse, its enforcement “is hindered by a complex architecture, prolonged delays, unknown and varying outcomes and severely deficient assistance.”

The Times reports that U.N. officials responded by pointing to the U.N.’s response to a case in Haiti, in which Pakistani troops were accused of abusing an underage boy, as a “model of accountability.” HRRW reported on the case in 2012, pointing out a likely cover-up, and in January journalist Kathie Klarreich expanded:

Take the case of the Pakistani contingent of MINUSTAH. In January 2012, several Pakistani soldiers reported to their commanding officer that contingent members were sexually abusing a mentally handicapped 13-year old boy in the town of Gonaives, some 50 miles north of the Port-au-Prince, since he was eight years old, passing his name from contingent to contingent for five years. Following the chain of command, the Pakistani commander should have reported the abuse to MINUSTAH, but he decided to handle it himself, hoping it seems, that it would disappear, since he was also abusing the boy.

UN police quickly ascertained that the Pakistani military had hired two local boys to take the victim away from the town without his mother’s knowledge or permission. They found the boy unharmed: one of the kidnappers escaped but the second, Alexandre Vladimir, was arrested and jailed. Vladimir admitted that the MINUSTAH commander from Pakistan had asked him to remove the boy from the area, and that the Pakistanis had come to his home bearing gifts for his mother: $12 and a sack of rice.

Jake Johnston / May 27, 2015

Article Artículo

Globalization and Trade

WaPo Takes Another Shot at Senator Warren on Behalf of the TPP

The fast-track authority needed to get the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) through Congress must be in real trouble. Why else would the Washington Post devote so much space to pushing the deal and attacking its critics?

The latest was a diatribe by editorial board member Jonathan Capehart which is directed largely at Senator Elizabeth Warren. The piece starts by basically calling Senator Warren a liar for describing the TPP as "secret." As Capehart tells us:

"Yes, it is secret from you and me. As Ruth Marcus correctly explained, 'This is not secrecy for secrecy’s sake; it’s secrecy for the sake of negotiating advantage. Exposing U.S. bargaining positions or the offers of foreign counterparts to public view before the agreement is completed would undermine the outcome.' But TPP is not secret to Warren. She has read it."

Okay, so the deal is secret from 99.9999 percent of the country, but Warren is wrong to call it "secret." It is true that members of Congress and a limited number of staff with clearance can read the deal. They cannot take notes and cannot discuss details of the deal with people without security clearance.

The trade agreement is written in technical language. Our senators and congresspeople may all be very bright, but it is a bit much to expect them to be experts on everything from patent and copyright law to consumer safety regulations. Without the assistance of staff or experts outside of Congress it would be quite difficult for members to make an informed judgment on many of the issues in the pact.

But, not to worry:

"Any member of Congress who wants to be briefed on the emerging agreement or ask questions about what they are reading can call the offices of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). According to the folks at USTR, there have been more than 1,700 in-person briefings on the deal. In fact, Ambassador Michael Froman, who is the USTR, has personally briefed Warren on various aspects of TPP."

See, the office of the USTR, possibly even the USTR himself, will be there to clear up any points of confusion. Yep, that's like the prosecutor's office making itself available to help the jury on any points that were not clear during the trial. What could be better than that?

Of course the deal could be made public tomorrow if President Obama chose to do so. After all, that great proponent of open government, George W. Bush, made the Free Trade Area of the Americas draft available to the public before asking Congress to vote on fast-track authority.

Interestingly, Capehart doesn't address Warren's often repeated concern that fast-track authority will be in place well into the term of the next president. This cedes a huge amount of Congressional power to the next president. He also didn't mention the issue that Warren has repeatedly raised of the extra-judicial Investor-State Dispute Settlement panels established by TPP. Australia has opted out of these panels, is there some reason the United States can't opt out also?

Dean Baker / May 26, 2015