POLITICS-US: Logjam in Congress on Trade, Aid Issues

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Jul 23 1998 (IPS) - Potentially explosive debates in the U.S. Congress on foreign policy, aid and trade issues effectively have been shelved until September – two months before elections – due to political manoeuvring that has split both major parties.

As a result, Congress will be asked to deal with such contentious issues as “fast-track” trade legislation, U.S. support for the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and aid for family-planning groups overseas in the over-heated atmosphere of what promises to be a nasty political campaign.

“Congress is supposed to be a deliberative body, particularly when it comes to foreign affairs,” one Senate aide told IPS. “But the rush to get things done quickly so everyone can get back home to campaign is going to make this a mess.”

Much is at stake, as lawmakers try to build up their campaign chests with contributions from politically potent interests, including big business, labour, and the Christian Right all of which have a strong stake in some part of the developing legislative logjam.

The Republican leadership, which controls the legislative calendar, appears to be manoeuvring for maximum political advantage – to split and embarrass President Clinton’s Democratic Party – at a key moment.

This particularly is the case with trade, on which Democrats are divided between pro-labour lawmakers – who generally oppose new free-trade accords – and Clintonite “neo-liberals” who represent better-educated constituents who have gained from economic globalisation.

Last November, the two sides clashed over Clinton’s request for “fast-track” authority to negotiate new free-trade agreements with Latin American and other emerging-market economies. When the dust cleared, a large majority of Democrats, many of whom need labour’s support to be re-elected, defied Clinton by teaming up with a minority of protectionist Republicans to force him to withdraw the measure.

In his State of the Union address in January, Clinton promised to make fast-track legislation a top priority for 1998 but, fearing more Democratic infighting, the White House quietly postponed plans until 1999 – after the November elections.

On Tuesday, however, the Senate Finance Committee, which is dominated by pro-trade interests in both parties, attached fast- track legislation to a pending bill to promote trade and investment in Africa.

The move may have doomed the Africa bill, as well as a companion measure to grant Central American and Caribbean countries trade benefits similar to those enjoyed by Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It also ensures an explosive debate just weeks before the election.

Most observers and the White House denounced the move as a cynical ploy designed to embarrass the Democrats. Republicans, however, insisted their move was motivated only by the national interest, especially in light of the Asian financial crisis.

Echoing big business and farming interests which are increasingly concerned about their dwindling exports to Asia over the last several months, Finance Committee Chairman William Roth noted, “We are at a critical juncture in terms of both the U.S. and global economies.”

For similar reasons, those same business and farming interests have also been pushing hard for the 18 billion dollars Clinton has asked Congress to approve for the IMF to help it cope with the Asian crisis. But, in the IMF case, it is the Republicans, especially in the House, who are more dividedt than Democrats, most of whom support the full request.

The Senate Appropriations Committee this week approved a foreign aid bill that included the full IMF request, But its House counterpart delayed action on the same bill until September due to a rift between the House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who favours the IMF appropriation, and the House Majority Leader, Dick Armey of Texas, who opposes it.

Just last week, Armey assured the Chamber of Commerce that he would not stand in the way of eventual approval of the money despite his own reservations about the Fund and its policies. But this week, he changed his mind, warning Gingrich and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Livingston that committee approval would spark a “very big fight on the House floor.”

“If this Republican Congress can’t say no to 18 billion dollars for an international institution run by a French Socialist, who’s going to use it to increase taxes all over the globe, then we shouldn’t be here,” he said.

Livingston, who is expected to be Armey’s principal rival for House Speaker if Gingrich decides to run for president in 2000, was quick to decry the Texan’s move.

“I tend to sympathise with the argument that the IMF is not up to snuff,” he said. “But I also agree with the argument that we’ve got an Asian crisis, we’ve got a Russian crisis, and that deferring IMF funding again this year would send a psychological message to the world that America is retreating within its borders and becoming more isolationist.”

Nonetheless, Armey’s opposition forced Gingrich to delay committee consideration of the bill until after the August recess with the result that the both the IMF appropriation and the rest of the 100 foreign aid bill will be taken up at the most politically sensitive moment of the year.

The 12.8-billion-dollar aid bill – which offers one billion dollars less than what was originally requested by Clinton and 200 million dollars below current spending – will raise other controversial issues, including U.S. compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and funding for the United Nations, the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility.

It could also become hostage to perennial efforts by Republican lawmakers to ban U.S. funding of private agencies abroad which lobby their governments to ease anti-abortion laws. Last year, Gingrich promised these forces that no money would be approved for the IMF or the United Nations without such a ban, and both houses of Congress agreed to include it in another foreign aid measure which has not yet been sent to Clinton.

The White House, however, has insisted that it will veto any aid bill that includes the ban, which is adamently opposed by women’s organisations here.