Clinton on Free Trade

President Clinton’s “insistence that labor and environmental standards be included in trade agreements” has nothing to do with protectionism and “coddling of labor” (editorial, Feb. 6). Rather, it has to do with upholding laws and ideals supported by the people of this nation, who are tired of seeing their jobs exported to whatever country will pay the lowest wages and are incensed that environmental protections that they demanded are being sacrificed on the altar of “free trade.”

There is no such animal as “free trade.” All trade is controlled; it just depends on who’s making the rules. Labor and environmental groups, which so surprisingly joined forces in the Seattle protests against the WTO, are not against trade per se. They are against trade rules that favor multinational corporations instead of the legitimate interests of the nation as a whole. Clinton probably realizes that the tide is turning against the faceless ministers of the WTO, who seem to be intent on giving away our sovereign rights to a living wage and a safe environment.

IRA WEST

Glendale

*

It is ridiculous to assume that Clinton’s insistence that labor and environmental standards be considered in the arena of international trade is merely a cynical ploy designed to win over constituents in an election year. Instead of attacking Clinton for recognizing some problems associated with free trade, the editors should be applauding him.

Furthermore, I am deeply disturbed by the reference to labor and environmental movements as “pressure groups.” Such derogatory terminology suggests that the editors believe the only legitimate voice in the free-trade dialogue is big business.

If by raising environmental and labor issues Clinton has “planted the seed of discord, suspicion and downright hostility within the World Trade Organization,” he should be commended for his courage, not taken to task for his inconsistencies.

SETH SHTEIR

Sherman Oaks