Asia Times: Bush wins fast-track authority by a single vote


	December 8, 2001	atimes.com

Global Economy

Bush wins fast-track authority by a single vote
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - United States President George W Bush won "fast-track" trade negotiating authority on Thursday in an extremely close, mainly partisan vote in the House of Representatives. If the Senate also grants Bush what officially is termed "trade promotion authority", then the president will be able to negotiate far-reaching new trade pacts with other countries without fear of congressional amendment.

The 215-214 vote, combined with last month's World Trade Organization (WTO) accord to launch a new round of global trade talks, is likely to re-energize the process of global economic integration, which has slowed over the past year amid a downturn in the world economy. Conversely, Thursday's vote deals a major blow to globalization skeptics, particularly labor unions and environmental activists, who argued that new agreements negotiated under guidelines approved by the House are far too heavily biased in favor of corporate interests.

"These provisions put business interests above the interests of the American people and America's clean air, clean water and public lands," said the Sierra Club, a leading environmental group.

The bill must still pass in the Senate where, unlike the House, the Democrats are in the majority. The upper body, however, has tended to be much friendlier to free-trade initiatives. As a result, some version of the House bill is likely to pass relatively easily.

Under parliamentary rules, fast-track requires an up-or-down vote by Congress on an entire trade package as submitted and therefore is considered essential for negotiating deals, especially under international frameworks such as the WTO. "If we do not get it, no one will negotiate with us," warned Bush's trade representative, Robert Zoellick, earlier this week. "Without this authority, our ability to shape the negotiating agenda will be undermined."

Until 1995, Congress regularly approved fast-track authority. But, faced with rising protectionist pressure from labor unions and increasing concerns about environmental and other implications of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the WTO a year later, a solid majority of Democrats defeated efforts by former president Bill Clinton and Republican majorities in both houses to renew it. In 1999, the last time a fast-track bill was submitted to the House, it was defeated in a 243-180 vote.

Democrats, led by Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, had demanded that new trade accords negotiated under fast-track authority include provisions that require Washington's trade partners to respect core labor rights as defined by the International Labor Organization (ILO), including a ban on child labor, and environmental protections. In addition, they wanted to correct what they see as a major flaw in NAFTA, called Chapter 11, which allows private companies to sue foreign countries for banning their products for failing to meeting local or national environmental standards. In one particularly notorious case, a Canadian manufacturer sued California for banning the use of a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water.

A majority of Republicans, on the other hand, had opposed the inclusion of any environmental or labor-rights conditions in new trade agreements. They have argued that Democratic concerns are really masks for traditional protectionism and should be referred to other, more relevant international agencies, such as the ILO.

The gap between the two parties, which Clinton and subsequently Zoellick tried to bridge, resulted in impasse over the past several years. But in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States and in advance of last month's WTO ministerial meeting in Doha, Qatar, Zoellick, working with the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, Republican Bill Thomas, decided to push ahead with an essentially Republican bill and fire it up with a patriotic appeal that ultimately may have alienated some key Democrats.

In a series of speeches and articles, Zoellick argued that opening markets through new trade agreements should be considered a critical front in the new "war against terrorism".

"Earlier enemies learned that America is the arsenal of democracy; today's enemies will learn that America is the economic engine for freedom and opportunity," he wrote in the Washington Post just nine days after the attacks. "Trade is about more than economic efficiency; it promotes the values at the heart of this protracted struggle."

In order to appeal to Democrats, four of whom initially endorsed the bill, Thomas's bill included a provision citing labor rights and environmental protection as negotiating objectives in future trade accords negotiated by the administration. But it failed to include any mandate for enforcement, such as sanctions for non-complying nations. In a counter-move, the Democratic leadership submitted its own fast-track bill, which included requirements that trading partners adhere to core ILO standards and guarantee that Washington and other governments comply with all multilateral environment agreements even when they conflict with new trade accords.

In addition, the Democratic plan called for the creation of a bipartisan Congressional oversight board to determine whether specific trade pacts meet minimal worker rights and environmental standards before they are submitted to Congress for an up-or-down vote. A vote to consider the Democratic plan was defeated, with all Republicans voting against it, just before the final vote on fast-track.

In the end, fewer than two dozen Democrats voted for the Thomas bill, while Republicans rallied their side in unprecedented numbers.

To bring over some reluctant Republicans and a few Democrats from districts with import-sensitive industries, such as steel, textiles, sugar and citrus fruit, Thomas, Zoellick and Bush, who only really entered the fray a week ago, offered to provide beefed-up protection and congressional oversight in negotiations affecting those sectors. In hopes of weaning Democrats away from their leadership, they also offered extended unemployment benefits, training, and other support for displaced workers. Even pro-trade Democrats spurned these, complaining that the administration and the House Republican leadership had made similar promises before, particularly in the wake of the September 11 attacks, but failed to follow through.

"It's time now to help American workers and their families," said Indiana Democrat Tim Roemer.

(Inter Press Service)