We are uneasy about the provisions in section 14 of H.R. 434, dealing with the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. If there is a genuine commitment to mutuality in this or any Africa trade bill, then we urge that a similar effort be undertaken, perhaps by the Asst. U.S. Trade Representative for African Affairs, to identify African manufactured goods already being produced that have the potential to become a meaningful export industry, and to identify complementary small and minority business in the United States and Africa for private sector and trade development. We need for attention to be directed more broadly upon the varied goods and services that now or in the near future will define U.S.-Africa trade . The preoccupation with textiles in H.R. 434, especially given the end, five years from now, of international textile quotas, lessens attention to oil exploration and extraction in Africa, for example, which at this moment is causing serious environmental and social consequences, especially in Nigeria.
Mining also raises difficult economic, political and social questions.
Rather than move forward with plans for a Free Trade Area, as H.R. 434 does, we urge legislation to replace the specifics of a Free Trade Area with a process toward increased trade that acknowledges the asymmetries of economic power between developed and developing nations. We need a process which calls for fair labor standards and environmental protection and, ultimately, economic relations that evidence respect for the needs of the African people. This can be done by mandating a plan for the purpose of entering into one or more trade agreements.