mbs
March 7, 2000
The New York Times' columnists and reporters' have kept the supporters of fair trade and development working overtime to respond to inaccuracies, misrepresentations and misguided op ed lectures.
What follows are two letters to the editor from UNITE president Jay Mazur. One responds to Thomas Friedman's March 7 column ("Don't Punish Africa") in the New York Times. Cong. Jesse Jackson Jr. has also responded to the Friedman screed. The other is about reporter Helene Cooper's Feb. 28 article ("A Trade Deal Helps Cambodian Workers, But Payoff Is Withheld,") in the Wall Street Journal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
March 7, 2000
Letters to the Editor The New York Times
To the Editor:
Thomas Friedman is as shrill as he is misinformed. His column ("Don't Punish Africa," March 7) misrepresents the position of UNITE on the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and ignores the fact that our position coincides with that of our sister unions in Africa. The South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union, for example, claims that the AGOA is "an attempt to protect and advance the interest of corporations . . . [that] will not advance the interest of Africa's poor."
UNITE opposed AGOA because it does not require countries in sub-Saharan Africa to enforce internationally recognized core labor rights. We believe respect for such rights is the only way to ensure that trade works for workers in all countries, and to reverse the "race to the bottom" promoted by current trade policies. As the General Secretary of the African Regional Organization of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions said:[T]he link between the core labor standards and international trade [is] inevitable. It is not . . . a protectionist ploy against competition."
UNITE supported the HOPE for Africa Act, introduced by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., which dealt with the issues raised by Mr. Friedman: debt relief, use of African fabric, unfair competition from China and the epidemic of HIV-AIDS, and provided duty-free, quota-free access to the U.S. market for clothing made of African cloth. None of those critical issues are addressed by AGOA.
Jay Mazur President
======================================== ========================================
Letters To The Editor Wall Street Journal 200 Liberty St. New York, NY 10281
Dear Editor:
The story of how an innovative attempt to link trade and labor rights in the U.S. -- Cambodia trade agreement, is working to raise standards in Cambodia, is turned by Helene Cooper into a tale of labor union protectionism. ("A Trade Deal Helps Cambodian Workers, But Payoff Is Withheld," Feb. 28th)
Ms. Cooper's story is riddled with errors. First and most importantly, she misunderstands the agreement. Then she questions the motives of UNITE and others in the U.S. who advocate labor rights abroad. However she saw no reason to speak with any one from our union or other labor rights advocates. But she apparently didn't question the motives of the American lobbyist for garment importers who accompanied her in visits to Cambodian apparel plants.
According to Ms. Cooper, the U.S. agreed to increase Cambodia's apparel quota by 14% while "Cambodia committed itself to improving (my emphasis) working conditions and enforcing its own labor code." Not so. The agreement says that the U.S. will grant Cambodia 14% additional apparel quota if "working conditions in the Cambodian textile and apparel sector substantially comply," (my emphasis) with internationally recognized core labor standards and Cambodian labor law.
The distinction is important. Are conditions improving in the Cambodian apparel industry? Apparently yes. Does that mean Cambodia should get the 14% quota increase? No, not according to the U.S. -- Cambodia agreement. Despite improvement, no one, including the U.S. State Department in its 1999 Human Rights Report, has argued that Cambodia is substantially complying with internationally recognized labor rights and its own labor law. In fact, last week the international press reported that three workers defending workers' rights at the Tack Fat Garment company, which produces clothing for U.S. importers, had been arrested and held for two days without food.
Ms. Cooper says that the administration didn't ask for a report from the ILO. Again, wrong. The agreement requires that in order to make an informed judgment as to whether Cambodia was meeting the terms of the agreement the U.S. would utilize independent sources reporting on conditions in the industry. Thus the U.S. and Cambodia agreed that the ILO would monitor conditions in the Cambodian apparel industry. Based on the ILO's report, the U.S. government would make a decision on the additional quota.
The agreement hasn't been implemented as planned because the ILO has not yet set up its monitoring program. However, independent labor activists have reported that this agreement is responsible for improving conditions in the industry. They urge that Cambodia not be rewarded until the ILO monitoring and reporting system (agreed to by the U.S. and Cambodia) is functioning. They worry, correctly I believe, that if Cambodia receives the 14% additional quota before they are in compliance with the agreement, improvements in the industry will stop. I believe Cambodia should get the additional quota when the Cambodian government meets the conditions to which it agreed.
One final example of Ms. Cooper's reporting. She quotes the chairman of the Cambodian Garment Manufacturers Association as claiming that because the Cambodia did not get the 14% quota increase apparel plants have closed. She neglects to mention that Cambodia's apparel exports to the U.S. increased 65% last year.
Jay Mazur President
------------------------------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to the global economy network listserver as: msawicky at epinet.org
The global economy network is a project of the Campaign for America's Future. America's Future is on the web at http://www.ourfuture.org.
To unsubscribe send an email to Tom Matzzie at the Campaign for America's Future <matzzie at ourfuture.org>.