This is from Charles Kenny and Sarah Dykstra of the Center for Global Development:
Use US trade and investment treaties to foster greater gender equality in the workplace.
US bilateral trade and investment treaties frequently contain language about labor laws and working conditions. For instance, US bilateral investment treaties include standard language that neither party shall weaken labor standards in an effort to attract investment. In addition, there is standard language mandating that neither party may restrict senior management positions on the basis of any particular nationality. Some trade pacts include specific mention of gender issues. For instance, the Peru Free Trade Agreement includes a labor cooperation and capacity-building mechanism for pursuing bilateral or regional cooperation activities on labor issues, such as “development of programs on gender issues, including the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation."
The next US president could instruct the US Trade Representative (USTR) to include support in future trade and investment treaties to pursue cooperation activities focused on the elimination of gender discrimination. In addition, future trade and investment treaties could also mandate that “neither party may require that an enterprise of that party that is a covered investment deny employment on the grounds of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.” Such action would not require changes to existing US legislation; instead, it would simply require that the USTR prioritize these requirements in future negotiations.
Believe me, I'm a strong supporter of improving gender equality (and we still have plenty to do on this here in the U.S.!). But when you bring foreign policy and international relations into the mix with social policy, the issues get a little murky. When, if ever, should we use trade and investment agreements to promote social policy change abroad?
There is no doubt that economically powerful countries can use their power to try to coerce policy change in economically weaker countries. The U.S. can do it; the EU can do it; China can do it; and maybe a few others as well.
For example, we could demand that others adopt a minimum wage; or that they adopt "right to work" laws. We could demand that they offer greater access to abortion; or that they prohibit abortion entirely. There are lots of options here, and the policies chosen may vary with the party that happens to be in power.
But should anyone be using their economic power this way? I understand why people would want to make the world a better place, if they have the power to do so. But I also think there's another principle to take into account here: we should tread carefully when we tell others how to run their domestic affairs. We may think we have a good heart, and would never abuse our power, and will only act for the greater good. But isn't the reality of encouraging domestic policy changes abroad more about longer copyright terms for Disney and Microsoft than it is about someone's conception of justice and fairness?
And isn't it a problem if the social policy change is only in one direction? The authors note that: "Such action would not require changes to existing US legislation." I sense that they see this as a positive, but to me that's kind of a negative. If we are going to push social policy changes through international agreements (and I'm not sure we should), shouldn't all the parties have to do something? That would make it a lot more credible, in my view.