NYT on China Trade

To the Editor of the New York Times,
Your editorial of November 3, 1999 enumerates the advantages to be
realized from a trade deal with China.  These, according to the Times,
“permit foreign investors to buy substantial shares in insurance and
telecommunications companies, protect foreign  investors and
intellectual property rights and commit state-owned enterprises to make
purchases on the basis of price and quality, thereby  eliminating
discrimination against foreign companies.” This is an investors’ list of
benefits not a worker’s or citizen’s.  The Times acknowledges that
workers may have concerns about trade liberalization with China by
noting it won’t displace American jobs.  Many of us are skeptical about
this, but even more than displacing jobs we fear that China degrades
labor standards on a world scale.  If China competes more directly with
Mexico and Central America, for example, it may force down their very
low labor standards farther.

Many commentators within the world of the Times take umbrage at the
alleged protectionism of workers and their allies.  Here is the reason:
the advantages of trade liberalization with China which the Times lists
do not include China’s agreement to guarantee, for example, core labor
rights as defined by the International Labor Organization, including the
right to form independent unions.  Such a narrow focus of benefits does
not deserve the self-appointed notion of cosmopolitan or sophisticated.
The opponents of trade liberalization under the terms currently offered
are looking out for a more varied interest and a larger one than its
proponents.

Robert Ross

--
Robert J.S. Ross                              Voice: 508 793 7376
Professor of Sociology                        Fax:   508 793 8816
Clark University                                 rross@clarku.edu
950 Main Street                      http://www.clarku.edu/~rross
Worcester, MA 01610
USA