cache
In brief, the new rules mean this: Every trade agreement signed by the United States must contain mention of labour and environmental standards.
Pending free-trade deals with South Korea, Peru, Panama and Colombia will have to be reworded.
All future trade agreements at any level must have such standards. That is, the US will not sign even a world trade agreement without such stipulations. Worst of all is the unwritten stipulation that the US can intervene and penalise pretty well any trade where its officials think they have spotted some violation of US standards.
It is not that the US has higher standards than many countries on issues such as child labour, say, or protection of the environment.
The trouble with this very troublesome new trade bill is that US standards are different, evolving, subject to change and always subject to interpretation. Thai officials must be extremely wary of such stipulations, because they are so insidious.
When rules about labour and environment appear, the stench of protectionism is pervasive.
Man, this editorial reeks of hypocrisy. The Bangkok Post is no proponent of free trade. It backs every right-wing and left-wing kooky Thai academic and NGO group that opposes any kind of trade relationship with the US, or any country for that matter. Just recently, the Bangkok Post loudly voiced the concerns of those who opposed the Japan-Thai FTA without, of course, giving the other side's opinion. The Bangkok Post printed story after story about how Japan was planning to use Thailand as its toxic waste dump. Now, I have no problem with anybody expressing their political opinions and Thai interests groups have a right to oppose free trade agreements. After all, that is what politics is about. However, I think it is a little hypocritical of the Thai media to criticize US interest groups when they want stipulations in US free trade agreements protecting the environment and labor, because when Thai interest groups demand stipulations protecting the Thai environment and labor it bends over backwards to give those groups a voice. In other words, the Bangkok Post has a free trade standard for the US and a protectionist standard for Thailand.
My personal opinion is that free trade is good and protectionism is bad. Thailand is a very protectionist country and I think that is bad for the consumer, a consumer like me, who wants the widest range of choices, with the highest quality, at the lowest possible price.
I think the US has a right to be concerned about environmental and labor. I don't know if it should be telling other countries what to do about those issues, however. Instead, it should probably regulate those companies that are incorporated in the US that do business abroad. Also, I think the US has every right to prohibit goods produced by companies from countries that have serious environmental and labor problems from entering the US. If the CP Group was polluting the environment and using underage labor in its chicken factories, why shouldn't the US government say no to the CP Group? Just like Thai government has a right to stop Japanese polluters from sending its toxic waste to Thailand.
If the Bangkok Post wants to be free trade, then I am all for that, but it should apply the same standards that it has for the US to Thailand and stop the hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment