Why would delaying the Panama FTA vote pressure Dems to vote on Colombia?

Friday we learned that the Bush administration is going to push for the Colombia FTA to be voted on in-between the Peru and Panama FTA votes. An insider daily journal reported, “Some very senior officials at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative seem to be convinced that they can force the consideration of the Colombia FTA by withholding support for consideration of Panama, according to an informed source.” (Inside US Trade 8/17/07)

Moving the vote in-between the Peru and Panama FTAs is an interesting tactic given the deal struck between the Bush Administration and Representatives Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi. In exchange for small fixes to the labor and environmental chapters, Democratic leadership promised ratification of the Peru and Panama FTAs when they came up for a vote. There was some speculation that the deal would also apply to Colombia and Korea, but controversy around these trade pacts put them solidly on the shelf—for now.

So why does the Bush Administration think making Democrats wait for a vote on Panama is a good pressure point to move the Colombia FTA forward? Could it be that there is little to no civil-society and union resistance to the Panama deal and the Democrats need a few trade agreements under their belt to prove to donors that they are pro-trade? The party’s money must come from somewhere. In a meeting with a key Congresswoman, a few of my colleagues on the Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment learned that the Democratic party is demanding each member representative pay $450,000 in dues—almost four times what they paid last year. This is in part why we are so committed to expanding the debate on trade beyond labor and environmental standards. We need to find ways to ensure there is real change to the flawed model and that political leaders can’t hide behind narrow interpretations and fixes.

As Representatives Rangel, Levin, Schwartz and Meeks return from their recess delegation to Peru convinced that the Garcia government will fix its labor law problems, I was struck by a quote from Luis Zuniga, president of CONVEAGRO (an agricultural consortium critical of the deal) in the Congress Daily today. He said, “The problem is, those who want an FTA in Peru are the same ones who do not want labor laws to be reformed in Peru”. He reiterated that more needs to be done to protect Peruvian farmers against the impact of imported subsidized crops from the U.S. This critical issue was not addressed in the trade “deal” and now unlikely to be dealt with in the U.S. Farm Bill as it heads down a predictable path of status quo.

Real reform for a more people-centered trade agreement will not come through incremental side deals. It will take more transparent processes and bold Presidential leadership that we hope to see from a new administration. Sounds like a good question to take to the campaign trail if you get a chance to do some bird-dogging.