Senator demands state vetting over global trade accords
supplanted by international-level trade accords has alarmed some
Senators.
Californian Senator Liz Figueroa for example has called for legislation that would require a public vetting process for when California is provided the opportunity to sign-on to provisions of trade agreements.
But Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed such a move.
"In vetoing critical trade oversight legislation, Governor Schwarzenegger acknowledged that California laws are at risk under trade agreements, but decided to do nothing about it," said Senator Liz Figueroa in a statement.
"Senate Bill 348 would have ensured that certain provisions in international trade agreements are reviewed through the same democratic process used to adopt our state laws."
This internal dispute comes just after the US made a firm commitment to cut domestic farm subsidies in order to get the WTO Doha round of talks moving again. Farm subsidies have been widely considered to be a major hurdle in achieving an agreement on global agriculture and services, and US reluctance to concede much ground has stonewalled any possibility of real change.
But Figueroa is concerned that without a public vetting process, any commitment made at the WTO could damage Californian interests - without the state being able to do anything about it. She also argues that the US Constitution protects such rights.
"International trade agreements are not treaties, and they do not automatically preempt state laws, as the Bush administration has repeated ad nauseum," said Jesse Swanhuyser, director of the California Coalition for Fair Trade and Human Rights.
"Either the Governor is confused on vital trade related matters, or he is willing to sell-out California workers and our environment with flimsy constitutional arguments. Either way, Californians should be concerned."
Figueroa claims that while the United States Constitution places the regulation of international trade within the prerogative of the federal government, primary responsibility for protecting public health, welfare and safety is left to the states. For that reason, the federal government occasionally consults with California about whether or not the state wishes to be bound by some of the terms of trade agreements.
"If an international trade tribunal finds a state law to be in conflict with trade rules, it's up to the federal government to decide to manually preempt the state. That is why it is so important for a state to thoroughly examine international trade rules before agreeing to be bound by them," said Figueroa.
Negotiations at the WTO have been fraught with difficulties. Although last week's concession could "break the deadlock in multilateral talks on agriculture and unleash the full potential of the Doha Round," in the words of US trade envoy Robert Portman, there remains substantial opposition, both externally and internally.
In open letter this week to USDA secretary Mike Johanns for example, Senate agricultural committee chairman Saxby Chambliss expressed his "concern regarding proposals… that would dramatically reduce US farm support."
In any case, trade ministers will aim to conclude negotiations on the WTO global trade agreement on agriculture and services in Hong Kong this December. The negotiators have already missed their initial deadline of 1 January 2005 for a final agreement on the Doha Round, which began in 2001.
Figueroa remains concerned though that without a state vetting system in place, "the Bush Administration heads to Hong Kong where new World Trade Organization commitments could place even more state laws in direct conflict with trade rules".
