April 20, 2007 9:50 AM

"Free" Trade Hypocrisy, Part 3,457

Today's Washington Times carries an article with the headline "Labor laws feared in free-trade deals." What's to fear you ask? In a word, accountability. National Association of Manufacturing hack John Engler (last seen peddling anti-union arguments in The Hill) is suddenly worried about American soveriegnty. You see, the new Democratic congress wants to insert some labor protections into some trade agreements, provisions which "would apply International Labor Organization standards, such as the right to organize and bans on forced or child labor, to U.S. labor laws."

John Engler, though, and the people he represents would like to reserve the the right to employ child labor. "Subjecting our labor system to foreign challenge is simply not something to which we can agree," Engler wrote in a letter to Charles Rangel. The hypocrisy here is pretty astounding. And, props to the reporter, he talks to a few folks who can point out the obvious:

"NAM and other business groups are perfectly comfortable subjecting our environmental rules, corporate tax system, and state gambling laws to foreign challenge, but somehow cannot accept that we might also be asked to honor our international commitment to respect our own workers' human rights at the workplace," she said. The U.S. Business & Industry Council said NAM is taking "a sham position in a debate that is virtually irrelevant to the fortunes of America's domestic manufacturing base." "Because they are unenforceable, whatever particular set of labor standards is used in new U.S. trade agreements will have no meaningful effect on the actual business conditions facing domestic manufacturers at home and abroad. "Washington obviously lacks the manpower to monitor the literally millions of factories spread across the Third World, and U.S. trade partners are similarly incapable of tracking the American labor scene," said Alan Tonelson, a research fellow at the organization.

For the millionth time. There is no such thing as free trade. What there is, is trade, which is managed by laws and rules. Those laws and rules are set by governments who respond to various constituencies and interests. The debate over trade is: what rules do we set and whose interests do they represent?

-- Christopher Hayes