News reports today are filled with stories of the deal between democrats and republicans regarding trade and labor/environment. One particularly detailed story is here. According to the report, ranking republican member of the House Ways and Means Committee McCreary says the deal won't be applicable to WTO negotiations. The focus is Peru and Panama (although Korea and Colombia may be covered too):
Under the new policy, free trade agreement countries would be committed to adopting and enforcing laws that abide by basic international labor standards as outlined in a 1998 International Labor Organization declaration. It would prohibit those countries from lowering their labor standards.
The labor commitments would be incorporated as part of the core free trade treaty rather than, as has been the practice, spelled out in side agreements or side letters.
Similarly, countries that reach trade agreements with the United States would have to adopt and enforce laws that are in line with seven major multilateral environmental agreements.
Peru would have to take steps to crack down on illegal logging, including mahogany.
The new policy also takes steps to make it easier for poor people in trading partner countries to get access to cheaper generic drugs.
World Trade Online had some interesting reports about the incorporation of labor and environmental standards, but there appears to be more work to be done to elaborate the details. Here's what they said about the environment provisions:
On the environment, the new template would include the affirmative obligation for countries to implement the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) they have ratified, and a list of seven MEAs that would be considered not to conflict with FTA obligations. As a result, the FTA cannot be used to undermine an MEA, according to the Pelosi fact sheet.
The MEAs subject to the so-called conflict of law provisions are the ones that the U.S. and other signatories have both ratified, sources said. But the language does not address the situation most likely to lead to a fight over whether an MEA conflicts with an FTA, which is when one signatory to a trade deal has ratified the MEA and the other one has not.
