|
"Death Star" Trade Deal: Real Progress, or Fast Track to Betrayal? by Noemie Maxwell Published on Washblog on 6/18/07 [Update: 7/4/07: David Sirota, in the most recent update in his Secret Trade Deal series reports that Fast Track has expired and that the rest of the trade deal has been delayed. The Office of US Trade Representative shows that separate trade agreements between the United States and Korea, Panama, Colombia, and Peru were signed in late June. I believe that none of these agreements have been approved by the U.S. legislature.] Also see Eridani's diary here on Washblog.
Democratic leadership of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, including Representative Jim McDermott, recently announced a new "Trade Policy for America" negotiated between Congress and the Bush Administration. The deal was struck to facilitate the passage of pending Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Panama, Peru, Colombia, and Korea. Here's the document that outlines the new terms for the FTAs for two of the countries: Peru and Panama Free Trade Agreeement Changes (FTA Changes). The deal has yet to be introduced in legislation, but is expected to be in the next few weeks. This is very much a hot issue -- not only regarding the content of the new agreements -- but also what they mean for a Democratic Party which has a new majority gained in large part by opposing trade policies that shaft American workers. The FTA Changes document and Representative McDermott's article in Huffington Post: Real Progress on Trade provide a reassuring view of the deal. But Global Trade Watch is calling it the "Death Star Deal" in a series of articles that make it look quite grisly indeed on labor and the environment. David Sirota's series, The Secret Trade Deal of 2007, portrays it as a profound betrayal and a threat to the Democratic ability to retain the majority. On the other hand, as reported in TPM Cafe, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue says he likes the deal because its labor provisions can't be read to require compliance with International Labour Organization Conventions. The deal will also, reportedly, allow the passage of "fast track" provisions giving the Bush administration power to eliminate basic labor, human rights and environmental protections from trade pacts. Democrats have fought hard to block these fast-track schemes for years (see table below the fold). In his Huffington Post article McDermott characterizes the deal as a "tiger with teeth" due to provisions that he describes as allowing the executive branch to be petitioned on unsound labor or environmental policies. Given the Bush history of treachery, however, how can this ability to petition have any meaning at all? I called Representative McDermott's office and was connected with spokesperson Mike DeCesare. The conversation was informative, but by the end of it, although I congratulated DeCesare sincerely on taking time to speak with me at length and without defensiveness, I was left with my central question unanswered. Why was there such stark divergence between McDermott's stance that this deal represents great progress -- and the concern of so many other Democratic legislators as well as the outright alarm of every other progressive commenter I came across? In this deal, DeCesare said, for the first time, Democrats have gotten the President to the table to negotiate along broad bipartisan lines. This is a big step. I outlined my understanding that the deal does not create any new binding requirements for protecting workers and the environment -- but only gives options to do so and allows Congress to petition the executive branch for greater protection. DeCesare explained that, on the contrary, the reverse is true. While environmental and labor standards have been in "side letters" in trade deals in the past, this time there is a significant effort to get these protections within the core agreements themselves. I outlined my concern that this deal has some other Democratic legislators concerned that that it is a step backward, not forward, tht it leaves workers and the environment unprotected, and that it may result in the renewal of fast track authority for the president. As an example, I read to him from a letter from six Democratic legislators citing their concerns with the deal and potential "devastating effects" of a Democratic split. But Mr. DeCesare assured me that these kinds of "spirited" debates are normal when dealing with "issues that are so important on a global scale." It is just this kind of exchange of ideas and concerns and opinions that we have been missing around here, he said, during the years when the Democrats were in the minority. This is a resurgence of what this place is about, he said. I expressed concern that this was a secret deal. Decesare said that no binding deal has been made. Any deal will need to be passed in the form of legislation to become law, and the legislation hasn't even been introduced. But this is being portrayed as a deal, I said. And I read to him from Representative McDermott's Huffington Post, which refers to legislation that will "need to be passed." That sounds to me like there is legislation out there which hasn't been released to public access, I said. No, DeCesare explained, there is no legislation now, only the kind of "draft papers" that float around. Well, I asked how can anyone track what's going on with this if everything is in such flux? He suggested monitoring the schedule of the Ways and Means committee to see in advance when trade legislation is up for consideration. At several different times and in several different ways I asked the question: if this deal is so good, why is there such deep concern about it, why so many denunciations? DeCesare responded to each of my questions in what seemed like a straightforward manner and I took copious notes -- but I don't find his response to this essential question either in my notes or in my memory. It will be interesting to see what comes of the legislation -- to compare, for example, Sirota's before and after takes on it. In the meantime, here's a summary of the voting history of Washington State's U.S. Legislators on Trade Legislation identified by Public Citizen as key. Two facts jump out at me from this table. First, is that Senators Murray and Cantwell appear to have voted counter to Public Citizen recommendations on every single piece of legislation. Second, it looks like, in 2005, our Democratic Representative Dicks was, in a real sense, the deciding vote on CAFTA. He was the only Democratic Washington Representative to vote for it -- and CAFTA passed in the House by a single vote. If Dicks had voted with the rest of his Democratic colleagues, we would not have CAFTA today.
Voting History of Washington State's U.S. Legislators on Key Trade Legislation, 1993 - 2006
|