homepage - programs - responsible trade - globalization - agreements pending congressional vote
U.S.-Panama FTA
Although this agreement includes the environmental and labor provisions outlined in the May 10th, 2007 Bipartisan Trade Agreement, it uses the same foreign investor language used in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America- Dominican Republic-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) that allows foreign investors to challenge our domestic environmental, zoning, health and other public interest policies. In addition, the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement (FTA) would make federal and state procurement policies, devised to reward environmentally-sustainable companies, subject to challenge in international trade tribunals.
While we are encouraged by inclusion of the Bipartisan Trade Agreement environmental and labor provisions in this agreement, more improvements are needed. However, since the agreement was signed before Fast Track trade negotiating authority expired on June 30, 2007, the agreement cannot be debated or amended by the U.S. Congress; it can only be approved or denied.
Backgrounder on the Panama Free Trade Agreement
Letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk: March 24, 2009
U.S.-Korea FTA
The proposed Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) contains some improved environmental safeguards, specifically committing the U.S. and Korea to enforce a list of seven multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) to which both countries are party. However, despite some fixes, the ability to enforce environmental regulations remains largely insufficient.
Like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Dominican Republic-Central America-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), the investment chapter of this agreement continues to promote off-shoring, and exposes our domestic environmental, zoning, health and other public interest policies to challenge by foreign investors in foreign tribunals. In addition, the procurement rules of this agreement jeopardize our democratically-determined federal and state procurement policies. This means that policies designed to promote clean energy use and reward environmentally-sustainable companies would be vulnerable to challenge in international trade tribunals, even if those policies were developed at the state and local levels.
This agreement was signed in June 30, 2007 but still has not passed through Congress. As the trade deal was signed under the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as "Fast-Track" trade authority, it will receive expedited congressional consideration - meaning legislators can not amend or debate the agreement.
Letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk: March 24, 2009
U.S.-Colombia FTA
In November of 2006, President Bush signed a free trade agreement with Colombia. Currently, enactment of the agreement awaits a vote by Congress. Like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) before it, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) eliminates barriers to trade in an effort to increase the flow of goods and services between countries. While the agreement does require both parties to adhere to some multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and international labor standards, it contains insufficient guarantees that domestic environmental laws won't be trumped by corporate interests while also ignoring Colombia's continued failure to enforce labor and human rights.
As written, the agreement puts the profit of foreign corporations before domestic environmental and health regulations. The agreement weakens the screening process for food imports to the U.S. while also expanding the monopoly of U.S. drug companies, making access to life-saving drugs even more difficult in Colombia, according to the Pan-American Health Organization.
Colombia, which encompasses vast tracks of Amazon rainforest, contains tremendous biodiversity and natural resources that could be opened up to corporate plunder without sufficient environmental safeguards. Paramilitary groups continue to use death threats and murder to seize subsistence farmers' land for palm oil bio-diesel production. This practice would likely increase due to growing foreign investment in palm oil coupled with weak human rights protections in the Colombia FTA.
Colombia is also the worst place in the world to be a trade unionist, with more than 2,200 labor assassinations since 1991 and 17 since the beginning of 2009 alone. Unfortunately, the Colombian government does little to punish or prevent rampant crimes against organized labor and poor communities, creating a culture of impunity that the Colombia FTA would only encourage.
All told, a free trade agreement with Colombia is the same old story; protections for corporations to ensure profit at the expense of workers, local communities and the environment.
The Sierra Club applauds the proposed Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment Act (or TRADE) which calls for a review of current international trade agreements like NAFTA, sets terms for future agreements and reestablishes Congress's role in determining trade agreements by abolishing Fast Track. First introduced June 4, 2008, this piece of legislation is still up for debate.
Sign-on Letters and Statements:
·Letter from Environmental Organizations opposed to Colombia FTA: May 15, 2008
·Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth Oppose Colombia Free Trade Agreement: March 12, 2008
·Letter to the House opposed to lame duck trade agreement passage: November 17, 2008
·Letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk: March 24, 2009