Foreign Policy

Today I joined with the Center for American Progress in releasing a report card that graded the Bush Administration's Iraq policy on four key areas:

*        Security and Stability: F
*        Governance and Democracy: C+
*        Economic Reconstruction: D-
*        Iraq's Impact on U.S. National Security: F

This report card is a sobering report.  Too often this Administration has dealt in slogans and glib assumptions.  This is an accurate assessment of where we are and what we must do to really make progress. Read more...

The Bush Administration claims that the India nuclear deal will be a "net plus" for nonproliferation. But that argument doesn't add up at all. How could a huge exemption for India from U.S nonproliferation laws and international norms be a "net plus" for nonproliferation?
Let's talk about what this legislation really will do:
* It will allow India to dramatically increase its production of nuclear weapons by shipping India fuel for its civilian reactors, freeing up their entire supply of domestic uranium for use in weapons.
* It will throw fuel on a simmering nuclear arms race in Asia: We know that Pakistan will not allow a nuclear disparity to develop between itself and India, should India ramp up production of nuclear weapons.
* It will blow a hole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
* It will reward India for decades of bad nuclear behavior.
* And it will send the wrong message to Iran and North Korea.

The President's proposal to ship nukes to India is a terrible idea.

The President signed a civil nuclear deal with the government of India last March. It allowed the U.S. to export nuclear fuel, reactors, and expertise to India in exchange for international safeguards and nuclear facility inspections. This agreement represents a significant foreign policy shift because historically the U.S. refuses the sale of civilian nuclear technology to countries that did not sign the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since it dramatically alters U.S. policy, Congress must approve the treaty before the U.S.-India pact can take effect.

I believe the United States must increasingly look to India as a strategic partner. India is the largest democracy in the world, is transforming into an economic powerhouse, and occupies a vital strategic position between the Middle East and China. India also shares a long history of combating Muslim extremism and is an important ally in the global war on terror. For all these reasons, I believe the United States should take steps to improve its relationship with India. I support H.R. 5682 and will vote for its passage in the House.

I’m disappointed.  Our trading partners don’t appreciate how much is at stake if this round fails.  No deal is better than a bad deal, so it’s good our negotiators held their ground.  I made it clear that I wouldn’t bring any type of ‘Doha lite’ deal before the Finance Committee.  I’m glad our negotiators worked in the best interest of the global trading community.  That means increasing market access.

I think Israel should stay the course.  They need to defend themselves and take as hard a stance as they're doing against Hezbollah.

I hate to say it, but I think it's become very obvious that our system for devising trade agreements so very important to this country's functioning around the world, has not only broken, but is broken completely. Today, we have a trade regime, which has led to the largest trade deficits this country has ever experienced. The latest report is that the trade deficit for the month of May was almost $64 billion. We purchased $64 billion more in goods than we were able to sell to others around the world. We continue to put forward trade agreements like these that leave us naked to competition that is neither free nor fair.

It is time for a change. We need a new direction when it comes to our trade policy. Not only for our workers, but for the health of our American companies that have to compete in this world where artificially other companies and other countries are gaining advantage over us because they are not following the rules. This is another example of why we should reject trade agreements that don't protect America's interests.

By AFL-CIO President John Sweeney

The closeness of today’s vote on the Oman Free Trade Agreement shows that the trade debate in this country is becoming more intense, as politicians in both parties are beginning to realize that our trade policy needs deep reform, not acceleration.

Today's House vote was much narrower than expected, 221-205. Only 22 Democrats voted for this flawed deal, along with 199 Republicans, while 176 Democrats (almost 90 percent of the caucus) and 28 Republicans voted no.

With working people going to the polls in only three and a half months, members of Congress are increasingly reluctant to ratify this administration’s failed trade policy. This policy has resulted in an exploding and out-of-control trade deficit (now at an annual rate of $800 billion a year), millions of good jobs lost, eroding standards of living for the typical worker, and devastated communities.

The upside-down priorities of the Bush Administration are reflected in this deeply flawed agreement. The Oman deal has the same weak and inadequate protections for workers’ rights contained in CAFTA and the other FTAs negotiated by this administration. These provisions are made all the more problematic because Oman’s labor laws are the weakest of any country with which we have ever negotiated a free trade agreement.

Despite the Administration's assertions, these trade agreements don't strengthen security or our government's relationships with other countries any more than they create jobs. They actually generate resentment toward the US and are perceived negatively in many parts of the developing world including the Middle East. So the irony is that while the Administration says this agreement would improve the US image in the Middle East, it will likely do the opposite. The Oman deal also threatens our national security by potentially opening up landside port operations to Omani-based companies – precisely the kind of transaction rejected by Congress and the American public in the Dubai ports debacle.

While we in the American labor movement were deeply disappointed in today’s outcome, we also believe the closeness of the vote reflects the tremendous progress we have made over the last decade in bringing the issues of fairness and workers’ rights to the center of the trade debate. We plan to work harder than ever to ensure that America’s trade policies reflect the values and protect the interests of America’s working families, and create a foundation for a truly just global economy.

It was the NAM that was chosen, on behalf of its members, to lead the private-sector push for the U.S.-Oman FTA, a sign of the confidence congressional leaders place in the NAM when it comes to support for passing important pro-growth legislation.

Final passage of this agreement will help strengthen the already strong ties that exist between the United States and Oman, a vital ally in the Middle East, and demonstrate our nation’s continued commitment to opening markets around the world. It would also mark an important step toward implementing the Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA), which, when taken as a whole, would form one of our top 10 export markets.

The NAM supported this FTA because of the obvious benefits for all of our members:

- All American-made consumer and industrial products would enter Oman duty-free, gaining even greater market share for U.S. manufacturers, who exported nearly $600 million worth of goods to Oman in 2005.

- Oman would further its commitment to liberalized trade, regulatory transparency and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

- And, significantly, 94 percent of the U.S. manufactured goods trade deficit arises from countries with which we have no bilateral free trade agreements. Oman will be a U.S. trading partner, which is good news for the economy as a whole.

The NAM salutes lawmakers who supported the FTA. The hard work now focuses in the Senate and convincing lawmakers there to back similar legislation.

The Oman Free Trade Agreement is a relatively small, yet vitally important trade pact. Oman is a strategic U.S. ally in the Middle East. Located at the Hormuz Strait and the entrance to the Persian Gulf, it sits directly across from Iran. More than 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes through this strait. Oman has retained friendly ties with the U.S. since our first trade mission back in 1833. It was the first Arab country to send an Ambassador to the United States and also the first Arab country to appoint a female ambassador to the U.S. In 1981, Oman signed a 10-year military access agreement with the United States, which it has renewed twice. Oman has and continues to provide important support to U.S. forces in the region including logistical and operational support for the Persian Gulf War and the present war in Iraq.
Sixty percent of Oman’s population is less than 18. Implementation of this agreement will help Omani leaders in their effort to create the jobs and educational opportunities for this younger generation, and will raise their standard of living to help them sustain a prosperous future. The Oman Free Trade Agreement will have a minimum economic effect on the U.S. according to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) since trade levels are low, representing about four-one hundredths of one percent of total U.S. trade. Since the U.S. trades U.S. goods in exchange for Oman’s oil, the agreement will create more American jobs, particularly in the transport equipment and machinery manufacturing sectors.

I opposed the Oman Trade Agreement. Oman does not meet ILO standards, unlike Bahrain. There is also a port security problem with it.