unlawflcombatnt
07-16-2006, 02:08 AM
The Bush dictatorship is apparently working on another "free trade" deal with none other than North Korea. This "deal" was initially described in the Wall Street Journal, and reported by David Sirota at his site. Sirota writes:
"The broad strokes are simple: the Bush administration and both parties in Congress are considering signing a "free" trade pact with South Korea that would cover a special project in North Korea that allows Big Money interests to exploit the enslaved people there.
This proposed deal goes beyond the other awful trade deals that we've watched the Bush administration and Congress consider recently - it goes beyond the job-destroying Central American Free Trade Agreement and even beyond the proposed trade pact with Malaysia, a country that prohibits a minimum wage. This trade pact "would be the U.S.'s largest pact since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress more than a decade ago." The Journal story, of course, is filled with hedging. No one wants to come out and say this is what the trade negotiations are all about, or that they really want this North Korea piece - even though its obvious Big Money is salivating for it. What they want is the issue to go back into the background and get quietly passed without anyone noticing. They would rather the public ignore the effort to validate the "joint-venture Kaesong industrial complex in North Korea" that "combines South Korean capital with North Korean labor" (read: combines multinational corporate cash with exploitable slaves). By the time the complex is in full operation in 2012, "it could employ more than 750,000 North Koreans" – again, North Koreans who are literally enslaved and barred from leaving their prison...."
"But even beyond the geopolitical implications are the implications for American workers – and workers all over the globe. Even considering this atrocious pact lays bare what our government sees our "free" trade as: a vehicle for driving wages, workplace standards, environmental protections and standards of living into the ground in order to pad Big Money's bottom line. Such a deal would force the world’s workers to compete with slave labor. It would rewarding a dictator like Kim Jong Il in that it would create a premium for corporations to exploit his enslaved population. The fact that this is even being talked about as a legitimate consideration inside our governemnt tells you everything you need to know about the hostile takeover of our government by Big Money interests...."
Working For Change: U.S.- N. Korea Trade Pact (http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=5E9CCC62-E0C3-F090-AE20962AF2B6395B)
This is actually hard to believe. But in fact, David Sirota gets this information directly from a Wall Street Journal article. The original article, of course, is chocked full of the spin one would expect from the greed-motivated editors of the Wall Street Journal.
unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary (http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/)
Economic Patriot Forum (http://www.unlawflcombatnt.proboards84.com/)
_________________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."
"The broad strokes are simple: the Bush administration and both parties in Congress are considering signing a "free" trade pact with South Korea that would cover a special project in North Korea that allows Big Money interests to exploit the enslaved people there.
This proposed deal goes beyond the other awful trade deals that we've watched the Bush administration and Congress consider recently - it goes beyond the job-destroying Central American Free Trade Agreement and even beyond the proposed trade pact with Malaysia, a country that prohibits a minimum wage. This trade pact "would be the U.S.'s largest pact since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress more than a decade ago." The Journal story, of course, is filled with hedging. No one wants to come out and say this is what the trade negotiations are all about, or that they really want this North Korea piece - even though its obvious Big Money is salivating for it. What they want is the issue to go back into the background and get quietly passed without anyone noticing. They would rather the public ignore the effort to validate the "joint-venture Kaesong industrial complex in North Korea" that "combines South Korean capital with North Korean labor" (read: combines multinational corporate cash with exploitable slaves). By the time the complex is in full operation in 2012, "it could employ more than 750,000 North Koreans" – again, North Koreans who are literally enslaved and barred from leaving their prison...."
"But even beyond the geopolitical implications are the implications for American workers – and workers all over the globe. Even considering this atrocious pact lays bare what our government sees our "free" trade as: a vehicle for driving wages, workplace standards, environmental protections and standards of living into the ground in order to pad Big Money's bottom line. Such a deal would force the world’s workers to compete with slave labor. It would rewarding a dictator like Kim Jong Il in that it would create a premium for corporations to exploit his enslaved population. The fact that this is even being talked about as a legitimate consideration inside our governemnt tells you everything you need to know about the hostile takeover of our government by Big Money interests...."
Working For Change: U.S.- N. Korea Trade Pact (http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=5E9CCC62-E0C3-F090-AE20962AF2B6395B)
This is actually hard to believe. But in fact, David Sirota gets this information directly from a Wall Street Journal article. The original article, of course, is chocked full of the spin one would expect from the greed-motivated editors of the Wall Street Journal.
unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary (http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/)
Economic Patriot Forum (http://www.unlawflcombatnt.proboards84.com/)
_________________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."