Comments on: Free Trade Agreements Hinder Unrest, and Terror

By: morgan-lynn griggs lamberth

morgan-lynn griggs lamberth — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:04:50 +0000

I heartily concur with the article.One should learn from such as Paul Krugman and Jagdish Bhagwati that free trade does indeed help the poor.Other factors play out. How to make trade agreements better is what is at hand!

By: Ben Smilowitz

Ben Smilowitz — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:36:29 +0000

How can AJC attempt to represent Jewish America with this? And how can AJC — an organization supposedly concerned with the welfare of those in poverty and struggling to survive, rationalize these free trade agreements when they force more people into poverty in Peru (remember even America decided against privatization of social security — we shouldn’t force Peruvians into it). And shouldn’t we be concerned with Colombia’s atrocious human rights record before we get too cozy? Can AJC’s policy wonks really look at the US Free Trade agreement with Mexico and say we’ve improved human rights there?

AJC has some good projects around the world– but this… is a mistake. The organization shouldn’t throw its name behind these controversial campaigns so quickly.

By: Lara Chausow

Lara Chausow — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:51:46 +0000

I disagree strongly with this post, and I’m not happy to hear that AJC is supporting these “free” trade agreements. All agreements like these that are modeled after NAFTA will do is increase inequalities and poverty, as well as show support for dubious human rights records. I’m not a trade expert, but I fail to see how such unfair agreements will benefit Jews, or any citizens, of those countries. This is not in line with the Judaism I practice, with its message of Tikkun Olam, and a general respect for the lives and equality of all. I hope that the AJC will consider the facts before taking positions such as this in the future.

By: Jeff Hauser

Jeff Hauser — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:07:34 +0000

There is a lot of acceptance here that a specific means will accomplish a desired end, and no actual evidence.

For one thing, the very people of the countries in question oppose these deals. Maybe corporate elites support their less than fully democratic governments, but I don’t really see how aligning the Jewish community with unpopular trade deals of the sort that have ravaged Mexico (despite a lot of BIG promises at the time, the actual effects have neoliberal Clinton officials like Cal berkeley Econ Prof Brad DeLong revisiting their views) is a good idea.

Last week, Peru’s cities (lima and others) were shut down by strikes
against the agreement. In Colombia, labor unionists have been murdered en masse and Uribe is being investigated for the murders, while more than twelve members of his cabinet (including his Defense Minister and Campaign Manager have already resigned).
http://www.forward.com/articles/10647

Taking a wrong position on the merits toward the goal of helping Latin American Jews is silly. The Jewish community’s devotion to tikkun olam and its traditional close relationship with the labor movement are at odds with evidence-less recycling of worn, corporate elite views on trade.

By: Eamonn McDonagh

Eamonn McDonagh — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:04:47 +0000

I am sorry but this is pretty foolish stuff. Bilateral free trade agreements between nations with small economies and weak institutions and the USA amount to a free pass for transnational corporations to ride roughshod over the rights of small countries and poor people. And there’s little hard evidence that they cause investment to occur that wouldn’t have happened anyway. Does anybody really believe that there can be a fair an mutually beneficial agreement between say, Panama, and the United States? I share the author’s worries about Chávez but Free Trade agreements which give carte blanche to TNCs from the US are only likely to increase his popularity.