Major Trade Deal Pilloried; Key Details Not Yet Known

In May, the Bush Administration and key Democrats in Congress announced a trade deal intended to clear the way for votes on pending free trade agreements with Panama and Peru. The deal would strengthen protections for worker rights. However, the text of the agreement has not yet been written, leaving unanswered critical questions about the effectiveness of the new protections.

The deal does not cover Colombia, with negotiators agreeing that Colombia must take additional steps to address violence against trade unionists (see accompanying story page 4).

The trade deal lays the groundwork for considering other agreements and, most importantly, possible renewal of authority for the Bush Administration to negotiate "fast track" trade agreements that prohibit amendments by Congress. The authority expires on June 30, 2007.

Passage of the agreements could set the stage for a renewal of fast-track based on a similar set of standards with respect to worker rights, intellectual property rights, and the environment. Congressional votes on the two pacts could therefore have far-reaching consequences for the next round of trade negotiations and the trade rules that will impact globalization.

The deal has been slammed by many Democrats, anti-free trade groups, and some unions. Businesses began lobbying heavily for the deal shortly after it was announced. Since key "details" have not yet been released, some major players, including the AFL-CIO, are withholding final judgment.

Human Rights Watch Analysis

Human Rights Watch in early June released an analysis of what is known and not yet known about the deal's "template." The analysis is based on summaries released by the Administration and Congressional negotiators. On the positive side, both summaries agree that there will be, for the first time, "enforcement parity" on worker rights, i.e. that the enforcement mechanisms and sanctions will be as strong for worker rights violations as they are for, say, intellectual property rights violations. Both summaries also agree to add non-discrimination to the list of core worker rights to be protected.

However, on the critical issue regarding to what degree a country must meet international standards, the summaries differ and have ambiguities that raise the possibility that the final text of the agreement could allow countries to sidestep core ILO conventions, considerably weakening the protections for worker rights. The Human Rights Watch analysis is available on its website at www.hrw.org.

Even if the final text of the agreement ends up meeting the worker rights protections sought by Human Rights Watch, U.S. unions, and USLEAP, the agreement could still meet opposition from labor and worker rights supporters who believe that the Bush Administration cannot be trusted to enforce the protections. They also argue that more must be done to support U.S. workers who continue to lose jobs to outsourcing.

In addition, many believe that the agreement does not go far enough in protecting the environment and consumers. Consequently, religious, environmental, and public interest groups like Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch have come out strongly against the deal, demanding a fundamental new direction in U.S. trade policy and its approach to globalization.

No trade agreements have been brought to a U.S. Congressional vote since the controversial and very close vote for CAFTA in the summer of 2005. CAFTA remains controversial: public opposition has prevented the Costa Rican legislature from approving it. A nationwide referendum on CAFTA is set for later this year but it is subject to a court challenge.