With support from just under half of the ruling Democrats, the US House of Representatives on 8 November voted to approve a free trade agreement (FTA) with Peru.

Prior to the vote, Democrats had broadly opposed the George W. Bush administration's trade agenda. This was particularly true when it came to FTAs with developing countries outside the Middle East: fewer than a tenth of Democratic House representatives voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement when it was approved by a razor-thin margin in 2005.

The Peru accord, however, received crucial support from 109 Democrats, who joined 176 Republicans to ensure its passage by an overwhelming 285 to 132 margin. Some 116 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted against it. The accord is expected to win approval in the Senate.

Two things about the recent vote stand out: how many Democrats supported it - and how many did not.

The Democratic leadership had campaigned for the Peru deal, following the party's successful push after taking control of Congress last year for the Bush administration to re-negotiate FTAs to strengthen provisions on labour and environmental protection as well as access to medicines (see BRIDGES Weekly, 16 May 2007). This was the first trade deal to come to a vote since the May compromise on trade between leading Democrats and the administration.

"I absolutely refuse to have the Democratic Party be viewed… as an anti-trade party," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (California), justifying her departure from past opposition to such agreements, according to the Los Angeles Times. She claimed that the modified rules represented a "drastic difference" that merited support.

Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat who chairs the powerful House committee with jurisdiction over taxes and trade, claimed that the Peru FTA represented "truly an historic breakthrough." "Not only will it open new markets for American goods and services, but for the first time we have included enforceable standards for workers and stronger environmental protections in the text of the agreement," he said.

According to an analysis in the New York Times, Democratic backing for the deal has been bolstered by campaign contributions from industries that benefit from opening up foreign markets. The party's rising political fortunes have earned it donations from firms in sectors such as high-tech manufacturing and financial services. While the Democrats' traditional -- but diminishing -- constituency of organised labour fears trade liberalisation, these companies actively pursue it.

Nevertheless, more Democrats voted against the agreement than for it. This reflects a deep split that extends to the party's leading presidential candidates. Senators Hillary Clinton (New York) and Barack Obama (Illinois) support the Peru FTA, while former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, whose state has seen significant job losses in the textile industry, opposes it. Critics of the deal expressed concern that Peru would not enforce its environmental and labour standards, and questioned the wisdom of handing a rare victory to the beleaguered Bush administration.

Many rank-and-file Democrats attribute the party's success in Congressional elections a year ago at least partially to the more protectionist policies espoused by many of its candidates, playing to concerns among voters afraid of losing jobs to cheaper overseas competitors.

"I am heartened by the fact that a majority of my party -- 116 members -- stood up for America's workers by rejecting this flawed agreement," said Representative Phil Hare (Democrat-Illinois) in a statement after the vote. "I am also concerned about the message today's vote sends to the American people. In last year's election, they demanded a new direction on trade. Today, the Congress they put in charge delivered more of the same."

Of course, the support of a majority of Democrats is not necessary for the US Congress to pass a trade agreement, even if the party is in the majority. President Bill Clinton had the backing of only a minority of his fellow Democrats when he secured the House's approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, with Republicans making up the difference.

Opinion polls suggest that supporters of both parties in the US are increasingly sceptical about the benefits of open trade. Congress is currently working on legislation to greatly expand governmental assistance to workers who lose their jobs as a result of imports or outsourcing. This may help assuage some concerns, though it would not address jobs lost due to increased mechanisation (see BRIDGES Weekly, 1 August 2007).

At the global scale, US Democrats' angst over trade is one of many substantial obstacles to concluding the faltering Doha Round of talks at the WTO.

If the Senate confirms the Peru FTA vote, lawmakers will not necessarily proceed to pending deals with Colombia, Panama, and Korea. The three agreements have been languishing. The Korea deal, by far the most significant in commercial terms, is stuck over concerns about beef and auto trade; the Colombia one due to persistent concerns among Democrats about a history of high murder rates for labour leaders there. The Panama deal is blocked because the head of the country's parliament is wanted in the US for the murder of an American soldier. Hillary Clinton said last week that she could not support the Colombia and the Panama deals, reports Bloomberg.

Even Speaker Pelosi acknowledged that the Peru accord was the least controversial one before Congress. "If you're ever going to support any trade agreement, I would think this would be the easiest one to do," she said in the House. "Other trade agreements have other obstacles that have to be dealt with."

In statements welcoming the House vote, administration officials urged lawmakers to turn their attention to the other three FTAs. They did not appear to mention the Doha Round.

ICTSD reporting; "Trade Accord Causes a Split of Democrats," NEW YORK TIMES, 9 November 2007; "Peru free-trade agreement splits Democrats," LOS ANGELES TIMES, 9 November 2007; "Clinton to Oppose Colombia, Panama Trade Deals, Supports Peru," BLOOMBERG, 8 November 2007.