I’m sure glad the Democrats are improving our standing in Latin America

The Nelson Report has been assuring me repeatedly that the Democratic takeover of Congress will not mean the end of U.S. trade policy. Here's one example from a report from last week: It?s our contention that even if the Democrats had not swept the House and Senate elections, the US would still face increasing difficulty as the political arena wrestles over the challenges of adjustment to globalization, especially dealing with a downside which includes mitigating pain at home, and enforcing better behavior by trading partners. Nelson is correct to point out that trade integration was not exactly going gangbusters prior to the midterms -- but then again, this FT story by Eoin Callan points out that it's possible for integration to slow even further: The US Congress will reject two trade deals agreed with Colombia and Peru, leading Democrats said, in a significant blow to President George W. Bush?s agenda for his final two years in office. Democratic lawmakers drafted a letter to Mr Bush on Tuesday night signalling their opposition to the pacts because they lacked tougher labour standards, while a senior congressman rebuked the president for pressing ahead with today?s signing of the Colombian deal. The fissure worsens the outlook for the administration?s bilateral trade agenda in the wake of the Democrats? mid-term election sweep and will disrupt economic integration with the Latin American countries. Sander Levin, a leading Democratic voice on trade issues, said the letter would send a clear signal that ?the agreement would not receive the support of the vast majority of Democrats, as presently put together?.... The congressman said labour standards were at the ?core? of Democrats? objections - a sign that the influence of the labour movement within the party has been strengthened by the election result, which saw a notable rise in economic populism among voters.UPDATE: The Washington Post's Sibylla Brodzinsky and Peter S. Goodman summarize how this kind of thing is going to be perceived south of the border: "We watch the news and we're nervous about what might happen with what we send to the United States," said Janeth Palacio Ramirez, 35, who supports her 15-year-old daughter and her elderly parents by punching zipper stops onto 7,000 pairs of jeans a day, earning about $200 a month. "Everything we make here goes there, so if there are problems with exports, we'll all lose our jobs.".... The fortunes of Colombia and Peru -- home to more than 72 million people -- may hang in the balance. So, too, might the nature of American engagement with Latin America, regional experts say. The rejection of trade pacts with these countries would humiliate their leaders at a time when they stand as bulwarks against the anti-American populism pressed by Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez. Latin America was already recoiling at the prospect of the United States fencing its southern border against illegal immigration. Now, some see the nation walling off its huge marketplace, rescinding the promise of trade, long proffered by the Bush and Clinton administrations as a means of furthering development. "If you really look at the U.S. agenda in Latin America, trade is the only positive," said Michael Shifter, vice president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. "The rest is immigration, anti-narcotics. It's all negatives." Latin Americans, he said, may well start to question "how serious Americans are about having a constructive relationship." Hat tip: Pienso