by frog
- Is it moral to give preferential trading opportunities to a country with the type of human rights, environmental and labour right record that China is alleged to have by independent international NGOs such as Amnesty International? How bad does a country’s human rights record need to be before it becomes a consideration? would we give preferential trading rights to Burma or Zimbabwe?
- Is it economically sensible to enter a preferential trade agreement that is likely to lead to increased growth for one sector of our economy but harm all sorts of other economic well being indicators? The most obvious threatened economic indicators being our balance of trade debt, opportunities for local businesses and workers, and a diverse healthy local manufacturing economy rather than solely being a primary produce nation.
- Is it democratic to sign up to a preferential trade agreement that is likely to lock future governments into its commitments so that they cannot back out of them in the future if circumstances or opinions change. Many trade agreements go further than this. The WTO’s services agreement not only bans government from backing away from commitments they previously made, but requires them to continually make more and more commitments as time progresses (‘the so called ratchet clause’).
We still don’t know the details of the trade agreement that will give China preferential access to our economy. And the government is ensuring that there will be a slim timeframe for people to ask and get detailed answers to these questions.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Justice & Democracy by frog on Wed, March 19th, 2008
Tags: Amnesty International, China, democracy, economy, human rights, Ratchet Clause, trade
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
The problem with China is, of course, socialism, and the dictators such a system always produces.
Could trade be the vector for positive change, as it has been almost everywhere else?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What rubbish, BluePeter! If China were ever “socialist”, it has not been for the past 30 years.
It is an authoritarian regime that constitutionally enshrines the power of the ruling party, shows no respect for human rights, has replaced collectivisation of Chinese agriculture and industry with privatisation, clamped down on any dissent, promoted foreign investment, and relaxed price controls. “Fascist” would be a better description.
And, frog, your reference to “…government and its support party, National…” is spot on. I found it particularly interesting that National Party Trade Spokesperson Tim Groser got a briefing from MFAT on the NZ-China Free Trade Agreement – presumably because Government was assured he would say nice things about it.
Meanwhile, Keith Locke is kept totally in the dark about its content, presumably because Government fears he will highlight the downside of it.
This whole process is totally undemocratic – the agreement will be a done deal before the Greens or the public have any idea what New Zealand has signed up to. This is the sort of behaviour I would expect of the Chinese Government, but to see it from the New Zealand Government abhors me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>an authoritarian regime that constitutionally enshrines the power of the ruling party, shows no respect for human rights
Sounds like the inevitable consequence of socialism to me. I don’t think they’ve ever really gotten over Mao….
>>support party, National
Are National in a confidence and supply agreement, too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In response to your three questions.
1) The government has indicated, and I think many people would agree with them, that such a move would be moral if such a move would be part of making progress on these issues, and would be better than feasible alternatives.
2) Without knowing the details its hard to know how accurate these predictions are. This is one of my key concerns. I’ve always thought it would be worth having a law setting out some basic requirements for products entering our country. I wouldn’t want this to require that products were manufactured in conditions that matched those that would exist here, but that certain uncontroversial things (eg forced labour, child labour, some basic work conditions requirements) weren’t part of the manufacturing process. Politically speaking this would be hard to argue against, and it would send a clear signal to other countries around the expectations we have of our trading partners. I guess the issues that people would point to are how much real effect it would have on the world (eg China isn’t going to change its labour practices because of us), whether it would mean NZers lose access to goods commonly available elsewhere, and the workability of the scheme.
3) It isn’t possible for any government to make decisions that bind future governments, so in a respect this isn’t really an issue. The problem would be the impact of a future government reneging on this agreement. However, that isn’t a problem with this agreement it applies in all cases, including, for instance, the Kyoto agreement, which presumably the Greens don’t oppose, despite the fact it binds future governments to the same degree that the FTA would.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BeShakey said: However, that isn’t a problem with this agreement it applies in all cases, including, for instance, the Kyoto agreement, which presumably the Greens don’t oppose, despite the fact it binds future governments to the same degree that the FTA would.
The difference, BeShakey, is that the content of the Kyoto protocol was widely known and debated over a five year period between 1997 when it was promulgated and 2002 when New Zealand signed it. This debate included a formal Government consultation process in 2001-2002.
The contents of the NZ China FTA, however, are known only to MFAT officials, Cabinet Ministers, and Tim Groser (and presumably he’s told John Key what’s in it), but it is due to be signed next month.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m told the agreement has clauses allowing the banning of products produced by forced labour and the like. Which is completely irrelevent since there is nothing requiring the Chinese government to provide information about what is manufactured by forced labour or allow entry to journalists wanting to find out.
‘Free Trade’ requires free movement of information to allow consumers to make informed choices, and there’s no way the Chinese government is going to have a bar of that. This is more of a ‘Suppression of Consumer Choice’ agreement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh yeah, another question that needs to be asked is what deals are being made on trade in services and investment. Helen Clark keeps saying it won’t make much difference as most Chinese goods enter freely anyway (this is mostly true, but not entirely), but that is only looking at trade in goods.
What does this agreement say about China buying up profitable businesses and repatriating profits and knowledge? Or buying up land, tourism ventures or shares in companies holding fisheries quota (currently strictly regulated)? China has pretty deep pockets compared to NZ, we don’t want to end up as wholly-owned subsiduary of the PRC (or anyone else).
…and there’s also Mode 4 – movement of natural persons. What is being discussed as far as allowing Chinese workers into NZ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sam Buchanan said: …and there’s also Mode 4 – movement of natural persons. What is being discussed as far as allowing Chinese workers into NZ?
Think Air New Zealand has already got the answer to that one, and without an FTA, Sam. Have them nominally employed by a China-based company (even though they have a NZ employer on their work permit), and as long as you fly them back to China occasionally, seems that Chinese rather than NZ labour laws apply and you can pay them as little as you like! Whether it stands up to legal scrutiny remains to be seen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad – the point I made was that the FTA binds future governments to the same degree as other international agreements (Kyoto is one example, but of course not the only one). The degree of consultation (which presumably didn’t include future governments) is irellevent to the degree that it binds future governments. That particular issue is a red herring, particularly in comparison to other, genuine, issues.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What FTA would the Greens support?
It’s a bit of red herring to discuss the contents and Tibet, although those are both valid issues in their own right. Wouldn’t the Greens be against it regardless, on the basis the Greens oppose free trade and support protectionism?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BeShakey – I’m not really that concerned about the binding effects on future governments. That was frog’s comment, not mine. I am concerned about ratchet (ratshit) clauses though.
We can always renegotiate, or even repudiate, agreements if we are prepared to face the consequences. National was threatening to repudiate Kyoto right up until they gave Brash his marching orders and john Key suddenly accepted that greenhouse emission induced climate change was for real.
I am far more concerned about the lack of public consultation re the FTA, and that the Government, with the National Party’s support, is signing up to a binding agreement that we as the public know nothing about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just a small detail, Kyoto wasn’t signed in 2002. Off the top of my head, it was signed in 1998 by a National Government, and then ratified in 2002. Big difference, the USA has signed it, but not ratified it yet. NZ played a big part in negotiating the Protocol in Kyoto as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter asked: What FTA would the Greens support?
Ones that meet these standards, BluePeter:
The Green Party will:
1. Ensure all international treaty texts are open to public scrutiny.
2. Ensure that all international treaties require a vote in Parliament before being signed.
3. Require that all international treaties give full effect to Aotearoa/New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities and obligations.
4. Strengthen the powers of international environmental organisations, labour and human rights organisations, and development organisations (e.g. United Nations Environment Programme, International Labour Organisation, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) to enable them to enforce their mandate and restrain unfair and unsustainable trading practices.
5. Work towards the development of an International Trading Organisation and regional trading agreements that respect and uphold international labour and environmental agreements, to replace the World Trade Organisation and existing unfair and unsustainable bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
The Green Party will ensure that Aotearoa/New Zealand’s sovereign right to protect all its citizens and its natural environment from exploitation and degradation is maintained and not compromised by global trade policies and commitments.
The Green Party will:
6. Support the right of Aotearoa/New Zealand and other nations to encourage local, social and ecologically sustainable development, and foster self-reliance (e.g. oppose forced trade through compulsory market access and similar mechanisms).
7. Preserve the right of tangata whenua to protect themselves and their taonga from trade and investment related exploitation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I do wonder why the details are being kept quiet, so I’m with you on that one.
Transparency is a good thing.
3. Meh.
4. Difficult to measure.
5. Disagree. Have you read A World Without Walls?
6. Meaningless. There’s nothing stopping this “encouragement” now.
7. Meh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fair point, Tushara Kodikara, my sloppy use of terminology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What’s the point exactly with ‘A World Without Walls’? Going on the Amazon review it’s all ‘globalisation/trade liberalisation good, protectionism bad’, which is obviously what the WTO is after. What does the book have to say on labour/environmental regulations?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Many people think the WTO has done good work, and produced good results. I am one of them.
#5 and #6 appear to want a return to protectionism, of which I’m not in favour. We’ve been there – it doesn’t work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well there is the often quoted case of the US wanting to ban Mexican fish imports of some sort because they were catching a lot of endangered turtles, but the WTO overruled that as ‘protectionism’ (although they have another term for it); there was also the case where Canada wanted to ban a toxic fuel additive from the US, but the WTO overulled that too. Not great.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter,
If protectionism doesn’t work, then how would you like to explain the post WW2 growth of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Malaysia for example?
Or to reach back somewhat further in time, the initial development of large scale industry in the USA, for example in New England in the 1820-30s?
And up to the 1970s NZ had a very protected economy and one of the world’s highest living standards. The economic crisis we suffered in the late 70s had nothing to do with protectionism per se; it had everything to do with the oil crises, and the loss of our largest export market when the UK joined the EEC.
It is way too simplistic to simply make a blanket declaration that “protectionism doesn’t work”.
Also, condition 6 above doesn’t read to me like “a big scary ‘protectionism’ bogeyman”, YMMV.
Secondly, if the opposite of “protectionism” is “Free Trade” then that is completely utopian, there is absolutely no country in the world that practices anywhere like 100% Free Trade, and whole lot country that say they practice Free trade cheat. Quite frankly, I see no reason why as a small vulnerable country and economy NZ shouldn’t cheat too.
We could start by requiring all the increased Chinese imports that will result from the FTA to be processed via a customs post in Eketahuna that uses commodore 64s, and since BluePeter seems to like free trade, maybe he could volunteer to help biosecurity in their inspections of the larger number of shiploads they will have to deal with. :p)
The FTA trade might be “free” but there is certainly a price.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for environmental and labour rights practices here in China, as well as product quality safety, there is nothing stopping New Zealand’s business community from doing their due diligence properly. This is possible now, even without the FTA. But us Kiwis have gotten ourselves a reputation for being bad at this business thing, especially here. I was talking to a woman who works in NZTE in Beijing a couple of weeks ago, and she had a lot to say about idiot Kiwis showing up in China, doing some quick negotiating, and then disappearing back to NZ, all without paying even the slightest bit of attention to building relationships or any of the other necessities of doing business in China. Hanging around and getting to know the place would go a long, long way to solving those issues with environmental and labour rights practices and quality and safety.
As for the migration of labour, I’m hoping the FTA will make it easier for Kiwi workers to move to China and earn higher wages….
And sure, those Green policies regarding international treaties sound very good. I agree wholeheartedly that the government’s approach to the FTA has been horribly undemocratic. Trouble is, from where I sit it seems the Greens have this unfortunate anti-China kneejerk, as if everything you know about China is dated 1989 and you’ve refused to update since then.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>And up to the 1970s NZ had a very protected economy and one of the world’s highest living standards
And what killed that off? The formation of the EEC – a trade barrier.
Comparative advantage works. We should tend towards efficiency, rather than inefficiency. What you really want is for inefficient industry to squander labour resource in the name of conservatism. Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, “Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards.
BTW: you’d only be processing via Eketahuna using Commodore 64s ($12,000 + GST) if you had trade barriers up, Muldoon stylee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wangbo
Too right. Guanxi.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“…as if everything you know about China is dated 1989 and you’ve refused to update since then.”
Doesn’t seem like much has changed since 1989 as far as human rights go. The colonistation of Tibet and East Turkestan have been stepped up since then and the military is bigger and better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>an authoritarian regime that constitutionally enshrines the power of the ruling party, shows no respect for human rights
bluepeter replied:
>Sounds like the inevitable consequence of socialism to me.
Exactly the same criticisms could be made of Chile under Augusto pinochet, and they certainly weren’t socialist. In fact, they were so far right that Thatcher was in love with them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not to sure what good this Trade agreement is for us? Personally I don’t want my DDT sprayed tomatoes from china any cheaper.
I doubt we can sell milk there for a higher price than its sold here. So more cows more tax payers dollars for their fart tax.
Does Forced labor in china include people in prisons who don’t have to work, unless they want to get feed?
China will and probably already owns our forestry, much like japan owns our fishing.
I think this FTA is a bad idea and just because no one else has one with china doesn’t mean we should go hunting for one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“We should tend towards efficiency, rather than inefficiency. ”
Would it be economically efficient to close NZ down and relocate the population closer to centres of industry and commerce?
Frog: “would we give preferential trading rights to Burma or Zimbabwe?”
Don’t know about Zim, but NZ is negotiating a free-trade deal with Burma as part of the Aust/NZ-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, so the answer is “You bet we would!”
“Does Forced labor in china include people in prisons who don’t have to work, unless they want to get feed?”
China still runs the Re-education Through Labour scheme, which takes malcontents and shoves them off for a few years of hard labour. This is an administrative process, not a judicial one, so there’s no actual trial. It’s just a bureaucrat deciding who’s been naughty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Would it be economically efficient to close NZ down and relocate the population closer to centres of industry and commerce?
That seems to be the approach Labour is taking to the South Island. Providing the same amount of highway funding to the West Coast as the 1st Labour government did, and a lot less than the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Labour governments did. Making Canterbury motorists pay $150m in subsidies to Auckland ratepayers while only allowing $100m in subsidies to Canterbury ratepayers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
this one of yous funny best idea yet dude,
but we dont do it of course what happen is we form the South Island Council, and you get to be the transport planner
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Protectionism most certainly does work, it simply isn’t as efficient. But many of us are quite willing to sacrifice some efficiency for human rights concerns, environmental protection, minimum wages, health and safety standards, and other non-economic factors.
The issue is not that FTAs are being negotiated. I think of itself, most people realise more open trade than we currently have is a good thing. The issue is that we’re allowing FTAs to go too far in attacking the standards we hold as a society, and not having them go far enough in opening up parts of the market that could really do with a swift kick in the pants.
Kevyn: That policy would be fine if they applied it to the North Island as well and started investing in public transport a bit more heavily.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)