Posted 25thOst 2001

Fast Track To Nowhere
Introduction by Stu and Alan (24 Oct 01)

Fast Track for the US has gained importance for us in NZ given that Helen
Clark is waving a flag for a possible free trade agreement with the US. And
a chap from the business lobby group that attaches itself to APEC (called
something like The NZ Apec Business Council) talked about a resurgence in
interest for a bilateral agreement, what with Apec, the visit of Brian
Mulroney and a new US ambassador. When asked why the US would be interested
in such an agreement when NZ would expect it to include agriculture - ie
the US would be getting little from it - he replied that NZ would have to
make a few attractive concessions. The suggested ones were to make it
easier for US companies to invest in NZ (hints of MAI?), and losing
labelling of GE food.

It was the North Americans who invented the infamous phrase, `There ain't
no such thing as a free lunch', which really means, if you want something
you'd better know the price and be prepared to pay. Well, I think the price
of free trade is too high and New Zealanders aren't prepared to pay,
especially on trade in GE modified organisms and their products.

Will Helen Clark drop us in it, like she did David Lange in the late 80's.
I hope not, but hoping is a pretty weak response to be sure.

Fastrack USA
By Doug Palmer

A new report from a bipartisan [?] panel of experts has recommended
Congress give President Bush the authority to negotiate broad new trade
agreements, an issue lawmakers are expected to face in the coming
weeks.

The panel said trade agreements have been important to U.S. prosperity and
growth and pointed to increases in employment, wages and wage equality that
occurred in the 1990s when the United States pursued a busy trade
negotiating agenda that included the North American Free Trade Agreement
and the Uruguay Round world trade pact. "It would be economically and
socially irresponsible for the U.S. not to pursue further trade expansion,"
the panel said. "Specifically, the task force recommends that the Congress
give Trade Promotion Authority (formerly fast-track trade legislation) to
the president."

Under that legislation, the president had the power to negotiate trade
agreements with other countries without fearing Congress would amend those
deals. Instead, Congress could only approve or defeat them. The White House
has not had the authority since 1994 because of a sharp disagreement
between Republicans and Democrats over whether trade agreements should
contain protections for workers and the environment.

In the area of labor and environment, the task force offered a number ideas
that they said could form the basis of a "reasonable compromise." Those
included:

-- strengthening the capacity of developing countries to enforce
protections against slave labor and exploitative child labor and to protect
their environment.

-- strengthening the ability of the International Labor Organization to
encourage countries to adhere to core labor standards.

-- establishing dispute settlement procedures and instruments to enforce
labor and environmental commitments in trade agreements, without mandating
or foreclosing the use of sanctions as one of the enforcement tools.

-- requiring countries to pledge to enforce their own domestic labor and
environmental laws as a condition of joining a trade agreement.

The panel also called for increased consultations between the executive
branch and Congress during trade negotiations and recommend expanding
government programs for displaced workers, while noting that technology
changes and other factors account for more of those than trade. In a
footnote to the report, Barshefsky repeated her view that it was not
absolutely necessary for the White House to have trade promotion authority
to negotiate significant new trade pacts. "To the extent the current
administration, however, has launched an effort to gain TPA, however, I
agree with the recommendations in this report," she said.