human rights. Similar corporate pressure has staved off U.S. sanctions
for human rights and labor rights violations in Indonesia, Malaysia, and
other authoritarian countries with large-scale U.S. investments. At the
same time, hoping to appear responsive to human rights concerns, sev-
eral corporations and U.S. government officials announced plans for a
"code of conduct" for businesses operating in countries with authori-
tarian regimes.

Some human rights and labor rights advocates in Mexico, the United
States, and Canada, along with their environmental counterparts, chal-
lenged the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement for
failing to address sufficiently their concerns. In response, the Clin-
ton administration obtained supplemental agreements covering labor
rights and environmental protection, creating new arenas for advocacy
in those areas. NAFTA was approved and took effect January 1, 1994.

In July 1994 the U.S. Congress approved a labor rights clause in a
bill authorizing funding for the Inter-American Development Bank, the
World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. The amendment
obligates U.S. representatives to multilateral lending institutions to en-
sure respect for international labor rights as a condition of approval for
countries seeking development loans. The first instance of labor rights
linkage to international lending programs, this amendment adds to an
array of U.S. worker rights clauses in statutes governing the General-
ized System of Preferences, the Overseas Private Investment Corpora-
tion, Section 301 of the Trade Act, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and
Agency for International Development trade promotion programs.

In Europe, an ambitious Social Charter and the related Social Chap-
ter of the Maastricht Treaty on economic and political union have run
headlong into a stubborn recession. Faced with budget deficits, many
governments have begun scaling back social protections. Pressured by
global competition, many European companies have eliminated jobs
and shifted operations abroad, including to the now relatively low-cost
United States. At the same time, social obligations under the Europe-
wide legal system are shown still to be effective: a European Court of
Justice decision in June 1994 found the United Kingdom -- the most re-
luctant "unionist" in Europe -- to have violated a European Union direc-
tive on worker consultation, raising the prospect of substantial damage
payments to affected workers.

These and other examples indicate the frequency with which human
rights and labor rights issues are arising in the international trade arena.
A distinction somewhat comfortably maintained by "trade hands" who
managed the post-World War II international economy -- that trade is
strictly a commercial function with no immediate connection to social
concerns -- has evaporated under the pressure of political and social

-2-