Related Articles
Bush Administration Turns Down Petition on Chinas Violation of Workers RightsApril 30, 2004 On April 28, 2004 the Bush administration rejected the AFL-CIOs petition, filed with the U.S. Trade Representative in March, calling for trade sanctions against China for that nations widespread violation of worker rights. Click Here. The AFL-CIOs 120- page petition was the product of meticulous legal and economic research by Mark Barenberg, a professor of law at Columbia University. John J. Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, and Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry immediately denounced the petitions rejection. Sweeney described the administrations action as "an outrage and an insult to American and Chinese workers. It shows decisively that this Administration will only enforce U.S. trade laws when corporate profits and concerns are at stake, but will not go to bat to protect the fundamental human rights of workers. The real results of the Bush policy are a bilateral trade deficit of $124 billion and hundreds of thousands of lost U.S. businesses." Kerry said: "The administration has once again refused to make any serious effort to use the legitimate rules that govern trade to level the playing field and prevent our businesses and workers from being taken to the cleaners...when it comes to China and defending American jobs, this White House is all talk and no action." The petition was based upon Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 that provides for the President and the U.S. Trade Representative to "take all appropriate action" if U.S. commerce is "burdened or restricted" by the conduct of a trading partner who denies workers the right to organize and bargain collectively. The petition dramatically described effects of the export of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.-caused by Chinas exploitation of workers- on workers and communities. In rejecting the AFL-CIOs petition, the U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick said: "Accepting these petitions would take us down the path of economic isolationism. That is a path we will not take." Zoellick arrogantly refused to respond in detail to the extensive documentation that was cited by the unions. He said: "We do not need to conduct a year-long investigation to know that there are serious concerns with labor rights and working conditions in China, as there are in many other developing countries." Then he went on to praise China for "[lifting] hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty." The Washington Post reported on April 29 that "business groups were pressing for summary dismissal of the labor-rights claim raised by the AFL-CIO..." However, all business groups were not marching in lockstep regarding China. The administration also rejected proposals by a unique coalition of business and union leaders regarding Chinas currency. The Fair Currency Alliance, which includes such traditional rivals as the AFL-CIO and the National Association of Manufacturers, contended that China has pegged its currency, the yuan, at a rate that makes Chinese goods unfairly cheap. They called upon the administration to levy duties on Chinese imports until that nation establishes a fairer value for its currency. Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans argued that the duties were unnecessary because China is still considered a "non-market" economy and is subject to "anti-dumping" actions by U.S. manufacturers who contend that Chinese goods are being sold at prices below the cost of production. On May 24, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is due to decide whether the dumping of Chinese TVs on the U.S. market has harmed members of the IBEW and the IUE-CWA. Even if the ITC rules in the unions favor, it will be too late for thousands of manufacturing workers at plants like Thomson Inc. who have been put out of work as competition from China, Malaysia and other Asian nations intensifies.
|
China's
Workers --
|
