NY Times says Edwards' opposition to Peru trade deal "part of his populist anti-establishment campaign" -- in fact, Edwards has specific concerns

A November 9 New York Times article by Steven R. Weisman reported that the House approved a free trade deal with Peru and that "nearly half" of the Democrats "broke with recent party orthodoxy and supported" it. The article also reported that there is "[a] split among the Democratic presidential candidates," asserting that Sens. Barack Obama (IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) support the deal but that former Sen. John Edwards (NC) opposes it "as part of his populist anti-establishment campaign." In fact, Edwards has given specific reasons for opposing the Peru trade agreement, although the Times offered none of them. In a statement outlining his reasons for opposing the agreement, Edwards cited concerns regarding international labor and environmental standards and the loss of American jobs, among other issues -- not that his opposition is "part" of a "populist anti-establishment campaign."

From the November 9 Times article, headlined "Trade Accord Causes a Split of Democrats":

A split among the Democratic presidential candidates, who receive support from unions but also from export-oriented industries, mirrors the disagreement in Congress. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois endorses the Peru deal, which is due to come before the Senate this year, while former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina opposes it as part of his populist anti-establishment campaign.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York said on Thursday that she would vote for the Peru deal, but she has sent mixed signals on the overall issue. . She has asked, for example, for a review of the North America trade agreement negotiated by her husband, and she said she would vote against several coming trade accords.

Yet, prior to the House vote, Edwards specifically stated that he opposed the Peru free trade deal because it "replicate[s] these terrible features of NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement]" and that it only contains "references to general principles and not specific [labor] standards." From Edwards' October 27 statement:

Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.

[...]

Right now, President Bush is pushing to expand this NAFTA approach to four more countries. He has signed agreements with Peru, Panama, Korea and even Colombia, where since 1991, in this tiny country, there have been over 2100 documented cases of trade unionists being assassinated, 72 in 2006 alone.

All of these agreements replicate these terrible features of NAFTA:

• All of these agreements provide the expansive investor rights that literally create incentives to relocate U.S. jobs overseas;

• All of these agreements limit our ability to inspect imported food - even as the International Trade Commission projects that these pacts will result in a new flood of imported food;

• All of these agreements allow foreign corporations operating here to attack our environmental, health and even local zoning laws in foreign tribunals to demand our tax dollars in compensation if following our laws undermines their expected profits.

• All of these agreements even limit how we can spend our own tax dollars. These deals ban many Buy America and other similar policies. Instead of your tax dollars going to support American workers, these agreements take away one the few opportunities the government has to directly create jobs here.

But these four proposed agreements actually go even further than NAFTA.

For instance, these deals give those foreign corporations who get contracts to rebuild our nation's bridges and highways or to operate mines or cut timber on U.S. federal land special privileges superior to the treatment of U.S. firms. U.S. firms have to meet our laws, but in contrast, these agreements let foreign corporations operating within the United States who have a gripe about their contract terms drag the U.S. government into foreign tribunals stacked with their own lawyers acting as 'judges.'

[...]

Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization. That's right, the Peru FTA could lock in the misery facing millions of the elderly and ill in that extremely poor country all to ensure U.S. firms can profit on what should be a government service available to all in the first place.

The Peru, Panama and Colombia agreements are also projected to displace millions of peasant farmers. This would be a major human tragedy.