By now, most of you are aware of the bipartisan trade agreement reached on Thursday afternoon from a number of diaries on the subject. What most of these diaries aren't telling you is that, on every issue, we defeated the Bush trade agenda and got 100% of what Democrats have been demanding for years.
A lot of the criticism has focused on process, rather than substance, amidst complaints that the deal has been kept secret. While the agreement hasn't been posted on the internet yet, the whole 14 page document has been public since Friday morning and shared with important Democratic interest groups, like labor and environmental organizations. I've asked some bloggers to post it online and I'll link to it as soon as that happens. Until that happens, you can see a two page summary here on the Ways and Means Committee site.
So, here's what it does and a response to some of the critiques:
First, these changes only apply to the Peru and Panama FTAs. They are also the baseline for changes in the Colombia and Korea FTAs but they both have much larger issues and Congressional Democrats have said that this agreement does not mean that Colombia and Korea will come to a vote. They have also said, very clearly, that this agreement does not mean that fast-track will be renewed. In fact, this agreement has nothing to do with fast-track.
On labor, it obligates both the U.S. and our trading partners to comply with the 5 core labor standards contained in the 1998 ILO Declaration. It also prevents countries from weakening their labor laws in a race to the bottom. This obligation is FULLY enforceable and subject to the same dispute settlement procedures as every other part of trade agreements, including environment, investment, and intellectual property. This is EXACTLY what Democrats demanded before the election.
You may have heard the Chamber of Commerce claim that the ILO conventions were unenforcable under this agreement, but they're playing word games. There's a difference between the core labor standards in the 1998 Declaration and the 8 ILO Conventions of which the United States has ratified, I believe, only 2. It was never a Democratic demand that U.S. be held to conventions it hadn't ratified, only to the core labor standards in the Declaration which are 100% enforceable. The Chamber's claim is an attempt by the White House to hide from corporations how much it gave in.
On the environment, it obligates both the U.S. and our trading partners to comply with 7 important common multilateral environmental agreements, protects these agreements from being invalidated if they conflict with a trade agreement, prevents countries from weakening their environmental laws, and requires a complete rewrite of Peru's forest sector laws to prevent illegal logging. Again, this obligation is FULLY enforceable and subject to the same dispute settlement procedures as every other part of trade agreements and is EXACTLY what Democrats demanded before the election.
The agreement also prevents U.S. drug companies from using patent law to keep generic drugs out of the hands of poor people, creates an exception to trade agreements for port security, and makes sure that governments can base procurement decisions on wage and labor standards.
All in all, there is not one issue in which the Democrats caved to the White House. This was one of the best showings of spine by Democrats in Congress since I started there almost 4 years ago. I'd be surprised to see someone make a strong case that this isn't true, but I'd welcome the discussion.
On the concern that the process was secret, while the roll-out could have been handled better (and there's still a lot to learn about how to reach out to the netroots on these important issues), there was, in fact, broad consultation with fair trade members of Congress (including two meetings between Charlie Rangel, Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and the freshman Democrats led by Betty Sutton) and with labor, environmental, and other interest groups.
The internal politics for labor and the envrionmental groups are interesting, as some of their members want a fair trade deal and some want no trade at all, but the deal was absolutely given the thumbs up by AFL-CIO headquarters before it was agreed to by Democrats, even if they can't say it publicly (yet).
Should the deal have been vetted with these important constituencies before it was announced? Maybe, but I think the reason it wasn't is pretty compelling: Pelosi was concerned that, if it wasn't announced the same day it was agreed to and details were leaked to business, groups like the Chamber of Commerce and NAM would go ape-shit and start lobbying the White House to back out, thus losing all of our progress.
Finally, it wasn't negotiated by the New Dems or by Sen. Max Baucus. Neither of them played much of a role. Rangel and Rep. Sandy Levin (D-MI), a strong friend of labor and the Chair of the Trade Subcommittee, were the chief negotiatiors.
Let's take a step back here. As John Sweeney said, trade policy won't be fixed overnight. However, for the first time in history, we have enforceable labor and environmental standards in our trade agreements. We didn't compromise, we dictated terms to the White House and they caved. To me, that's a victory for a trade policy that keeps faith with American workers and the environment.
Please recommend. I think its important these details get out publicly.
UDPATE: Stoller was able to link to the full document. Have at it: http://www.mydd.com/...