Final answer:
The Business Roundtable supports expanding trade and globalization, believing it drives economic growth, while the AFL-CIO focuses on protecting American workers from the negative effects of trade agreements like job losses. NAFTA and WTO are central to trade policy, with differing American views on their impact. The 1999 Seattle WTO protests were driven by concerns over corporate-driven agendas over social and environmental issues.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Business Roundtable (BRT) and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) represent vastly different viewpoints on the topic of expanding trade. The BRT, comprised of chief executive officers from leading U.S. companies, advocates for policies that promote international trade and investment, believing globalization enhances innovation, efficiency, and economic growth. In contrast, the AFL-CIO, a federation of unions, emphasizes the protection of American jobs and workers, highlighting concerns like wage suppression, job loss, and the weakening of labor rights associated with trade agreements and outsourcing.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are pivotal in shaping international trade policies. NAFTA sought to eliminate trade barriers between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, which supporters argue has boosted trade and economic ties among the member countries. However, some Americans have criticized NAFTA for leading to job losses in manufacturing as companies moved operations to Mexico seeking lower wages. Similarly, the WTO aims to facilitate smooth and free international trade. Yet, its policies and negotiations have led to protests, including the significant 1999 Seattle demonstrations, where members of labor, environmental, and other activist groups opposed what they saw as a predominantly corporate-driven agenda that neglected social and environmental considerations.