Social Protectionism

Rakesh Bhandari bhandari at Princeton.EDU
Tue Mar 7 06:42:24 PST 2000


Michael Pollak pointed me to this editorial in today's NYT (well he copied it for me--thanks!) Please note below what I have put in asterisks. Quota increases/tarriff removals are contigent on complete subordination of production capacity to US capital. As Marx argued Capital vol 1: "A new and international division of labour, springs up, one suited to the requirements of the main industrial countries." Vintage. 579-80

Unless so subordinated, the semic colonial country faces the threat of social protection to which American labor has given its imprimatur, though the real interest is the valorization of imperialist capital. It's an aggressive alliance between US capital and US workers--social imperialism which is followed to its logical conclusion, no matter the horrific human consequences.

March 7, 2000

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Don't Punish Africa

_________________________________________________________________

T here is a travesty brewing in Congress that, if allowed to continue,

will be a source of shame for all Americans. It will certainly be an

ugly stain on the U.S. labor movement, particularly the apparel union

and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. -- a stain that will highlight all the unions'

phony-baloney assertions in Seattle that they just want to improve

worker rights around the world and help the poor.

This controversy has to do with a stalled trade bill called The

African Growth and Opportunity Act. And the bottom line is this: At a

time when Africa is ravaged by AIDS, at a time when 290 million

Africans -- more than the entire population of the U.S. -- are living

on a dollar a day, the main U.S. textile union, UNITE!; the main

textile manufacturers' lobby, ATMI; and the lawmakers who bow to both

of them are blocking a bill that would allow Africans to export

clothing to America duty free -- instead of with the current 17

percent import tax.

Why the opposition? Because Africa might increase its share of U.S.

textile and apparel imports from its current level of 0.8 percent!

Shame on the people blocking this bill. Shame on them.

Some 85 percent of the garments sold in the U.S. today are already

sewn abroad. Honduras, little Honduras, already exports seven times

more textiles and apparel to the U.S. than all 48 nations of

sub-Saharan Africa combined. With our minimum wages, we can't produce

jeans that retail for $16 and we don't want to. North Carolina's

textile industry has already become highly automated and has moved

away from low-value goods to high-value, high-tech fabrics. Much of

the unionized labor force sewing clothes in the U.S. is in large

cities and comprises new immigrants, many not citizens, since most

Americans don't want these jobs.

If Africa were given duty-free access to our market, sophisticated

textile plants in North Carolina wouldn't move to Madagascar. China

would be the big loser, because Africans have the same skills to knit

cashmere sweaters cheaply as people in China, and if Africa were given

a 17 percent import tax advantage in shipping to the U.S.,

manufacturers would move their production from low-wage China to

low-wage Africa. Which is why a study by the U.S. International Trade

Commission concluded that "the impact of quota removal [for African

imports] on U.S. producers and U.S. workers would be negligible."

So why do the unions still oppose it? Sheer knee-jerk protectionism --

even though the bill has tough measures to protect against any surge

in imports from Africa, and restricts free-trade status to African

countries moving toward democracy, economic reform and real worker

protection.

No matter. ***Right now the only version of the bill the textile makers

would permit is one that says Africa can only import duty-free into

the U.S. if it first buys all the fabric, thread and yarn from U.S.

factories, then ships it to Africa to be sewn, and then ships it back

to the U.S. to be sold -- a costly obstacle course that would prevent

any new investment in African factories.*** The real motto of U.S. trade

unions is: We're for more worker standards in Africa, not more work.

This is really bad. This bill isn't a panacea for Africa, but it's

important. Throughout the history of industrialization, poor countries

have started down the road of development by sewing clothes. It's the

one thing that poor people can do right away. It's critical that this

bill go through now because by 2005 all the quotas on textile imports

into the U.S. will expire. It will be a free-for-all. Right now

investors are deciding where to locate plants for 2005 -- whether to

stick with China or branch out to Africa, Vietnam or Mexico. If Africa

is shut out from these investment decisions, it will fall even further

behind.

The Clintonites talk the talk of Africa and AIDS, but, sadly, they

have been afraid to get tough with the unions on this textile issue.

Why is AIDS spreading so quickly among young women in Africa? One

reason is that women have so few jobs they have to sell themselves to

men with AIDS. Apparel jobs largely employ women. They make a

difference.

But this is of no interest to the A.F.L.-C.I.O. crowd. All they care

about is that Africa not sell more than 0.8 percent of garments here.

Shame on them for what they are doing, and shame on us if we let them.

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list