Here we go again, Max: I agreed with two points that Friedman made while disagreeing with every neoliberal policy he would impose on Africa through the African Growth and Opportunity Act and opposing every and all union busting steps he would champion at home.
So you insult me needlessly by claiming that I am channeling him, or am his bedfellow.
To repeat, I agree with him on these two points:
1. his oppostion to Africa having to import all the fabric, thread and yarn from U.S.factories to get duty free imports. Friedman did say that the textile mfg association, not UNITE, had imposed this condition and would only accept a trade deal that included it In the letter, Mazur did not say that he would not under any conditions support any compromise deal that included such a condition. My suspicion remains that he will accept such a condition as long as the compromise bill includes his main demand for core labor rights. This is called management-labor cooperation.
2. Which raises the question of why Mazur is so interested in core labor standards if Africa's exports would be non competing with American production anyway. Mazur simply does not respond to this seemingly accurate point of Friedman's. It would seem to me that core labor rights are meant at one level simply to appease American workers that jobs won't be lost to foreign competition--they are purely symbolic victory that allows Mazur to justify his salary--while both textile capitalists and union bureaucrats agree to a kind of export content law: inputs from basic materials to machinery from the US must be used for tariff free access to US market.
If countries seem unwilling to meet these export content laws (as I am dubbing them), then Mazur will be called upon to cry violation of core labor standards by that country (though any and every country in the capitalist world market violates them) and raise the protectionist barrier. This is the new 1-2 punch of social imperialism.
The reason why I support this (my own) interpretation is that there is no reason for Mazur to support social protection on the behalf of American workers; in practical terms he must want this provision for other reasons than direct protection of American workers who are not threatened by African exports. And that reason is simply to punish countries that don't meet US export input requirements, i.e. American economic imperialism.
Now to Cambodia:
However she saw no
>reason to speak with any one from our union or other labor rights advocates.
This is a serious and important criticism.
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.
Mazur misses the point compliance here has not been achieved by any country, the US included (its own laws are violated routinely too). So what's the secret button a country has to push to get access to the US market--subordination to American capital.
>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.
How can denial of import quota increase and surge of exports both be true? This is confusing.
Best, Rakesh