WALL STREET JOURNAL | November 16, 2001 | By HELENE COOPER and SHAILAGH MURRAY, Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick faced a stark choice when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, last week: He could win either fast-track negotiating authority from Congress or a new round of trade talks.
To get a World Trade Organization deal, Mr. Zoellick would have to make concessions to poor countries that would so infuriate Congress that lawmakers wouldn't grant fast-track authority. To get fast track, which would allow President Bush to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend, he would have to make concessions to liberal Democrats that would so anger poorer countries that they wouldn't open new trade talks.
On Monday, Mr. Zoellick announced his decision to a group of ministers and delegates at the convention center in Doha, where the WTO was meeting. The U.S., he said, would cede to their demands to allow negotiations on America's hated antidumping laws, which punish other countries that "dump" products on the U.S. market at below cost.
Bill Klinefelter, the United Steelworkers of America representative who went to Doha to keep Mr. Zoellick from negotiating on U.S. antidumping laws, was furious. Mr. Zoellick, he said, could "kiss fast track goodbye. He's never getting it now."
The irony is that without fast track, Mr. Zoellick won't be able to conclude the trade talks launched at the WTO meeting. Trade envoys hope to wrap up the talks in three years, though few really believe they will finish that early.
Thursday, lawmakers were still digesting the details of the Doha agreement. Republicans praised it and said they still plan to try to get fast track. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R., Ill.) said he still hopes to bring fast-track authority to a vote the week after Thanksgiving. But there is little chance of passage without some support from moderate Democrats -- and few were cheering.
Mr. Zoellick's fast-track proposal "was not tenable before Doha, and it's even less tenable after Doha," said Rep. Sander Levin, (D., Mich.) the only lawmaker who attended the WTO meeting.
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D., Mo.) told reporters Mr. Zoellick's concessions were "negative in terms of getting agreement on" fast track. "They put on the table for negotiation our antidumping laws," he said. "We are in the middle of a steel crisis now in terms of losing sales and losing capacity in our steel system."
The U.S. steel industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries of antidumping laws, so lawmakers from steel states don't want to see those laws weakened. Mr. Zoellick's decision "is a stunning betrayal of America's workers," said Rep. Peter Visclosky (D., Ind.), vice chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus. "Putting our trade laws on the table flies in the face of fair trade and totally disregards the expressed will of Congress that our trade laws not be negotiated away."
Before going to Qatar, Mr. Zoellick said he was fed up with Democrats' demands for more concessions on fast track. He pointed to his decision to allow a big steel trade case to go forward, which could temporarily shutter the U.S. market to some foreign steel. He said his fast-track proposal also addressed labor and environmental concerns of Democrats. "At some point, people are going to have to decide if they can take yes for an answer," Mr. Zoellick said.
Some moderate Democrats defended Mr. Zoellick's concessions on steel and said they still hope to salvage fast track. "The challenge is making sure everyone understands the provisions," said Rep. Calvin Dooley (D., Calif.).
In Doha, Mr. Zoellick steadfastly protected America's textile industry. He repeatedly turned down demands from India and Pakistan that the U.S. import more clothing. That decision was looking almost fortuitous, but it clearly won't be enough to bring about converts on fast track: Burlington Industries Inc., Greensboro, N.C., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and blamed it on cheap imports. Burlington Chief Executive George W. Henderson specifically cited the U.S. government as a culprit, saying it used the textile industry as a bargaining chip in international relations.WALL STREET JOURNAL:
