Fault Lies in GATT, Not Free Trade Itself

James Flanigan did his usually excellent job in extolling the benefits of free trade (“GATT Reality Check Is Drawing on Strong Reserves,” Nov. 27) but confused opposition to GATT with opposition to free trade. The objections of the environmental community and consumer groups lie in the structure of the agreement, not free trade.

Flanigan quotes constitutional scholar Robert Bork that “no international agreement can override U.S. laws.” This is a perfect example of Bork’s verbal sleight of hand (sleight of mouth) in stating a true fact in order to tell a falsehood.

It so happens that under GATT, a body decides in closed session which laws constitute a restraint of trade. True, the offending country need not rescind the offending law or regulation. However, the country must keep paying a hefty fine as determined by the body if it wishes to keep the law.

Any offshore country can challenge the law in behalf of any international mega-corporation. Can you imagine President Clinton pulling out after six months, when these decisions go against us? Or Dole? Or Gingrich?

European countries are already waiting to attack our automobile efficiency standards, our safety standards, pesticide tolerances and even lead in wine. This has already shown up under NAFTA with regard to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

In addition, some of our industries wish to attack environmental laws in other countries where theirs are stronger than ours. For example, the German government has much stricter requirements on recycling of manufactured products. Our trade representative would be accusing them of restraining trade.

Thus we come down to the lowest common denominator prevailing. Health, safety and the environment will all be sacrificed to a grievously faulty agreement.

EMIL LAWTON

Sherman Oaks