On the one hand, you have a nation that has shown minimal respect for international copyright law, allowing a rogue MP3 site to sell song downloads to which it has no rights. On the other hand, there are signs things are improving, and the nation has a large population with some level of wealth. Going on the Bastiat-like assumption that there should be more trade rather than less, I would have to say we should be encouraged by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's announcement that the US and Russia are concluding bilateral negotiations that could lead to a treaty signing next week and moving Russia toward the WTO, membership of which it has sought for over a decade. IP has been a major focus of the USTR, and a major sticking point with Russia, as USTR Susan Schwab has said, but OUSTR also said progress was made on that front:

• Together we agreed to a binding blueprint for actions to address piracy and counterfeiting and improve protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights before Russia completes its accession to the WTO. This agreement sets the stage for further progress with Russia on IPR issues through the next phase of multilateral WTO negotiations so that Russia will fully implement TRIPS upon accession.

• Russia has agreed to take specific actions, and to enact laws by specific dates, to fight optical disk piracy and internet piracy, and work to enact laws by specific dates to protect pharmaceutical test data, establish tougher criminal penalties for IP crimes, strengthen border enforcement, and bring its IPR legislation into line with international norms. There are specific deadlines built into the agreement.

• Russia has committed to fully implement the TRIPS Agreement and other IPR-related international agreements upon accession, and to ensure that any changes to its existing legislative regime for IPR, including those made in the context of Part IV of the Civil Code, do not reduce consistency with key international IPR standards.

Of course, Congress will have to approve this. Some readers will remember the contentious fight over China's admission to WTO; I felt conflicted in that debate, because while I am a ferocious free trader, I was extremely skeptical that China would play by the rules once admitted. I've been proven right, to an extent, but in some areas they've been better than I expected.

Dave Carney of Tech Law Journal reports that there is bipartisan skepticism of Russia's commitment to IP enforcement, both from stalwart IP defender Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and likely Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana). I'm glad Russia's feet will be held to the fire on IP; at a minimum, it must shut down the rogue MP3 web site.

On congressional approval of anything trade-related, however, I have concerns. Last night the House of Representatives defeated an unbelievably noncontroversial bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam. The House leadership erred by putting it on the suspension calendar, requiring a 2/3 vote, but a majority of Democrats still voted against it as well as dozens of Republicans. It even included provisions on import limitations to protect U.S. textile workers and still failed. And this is before the new Congress takes over, with Lou Dobbs clones like Sherrod Brown, the new Democratic senator from Ohio.

Congressional trends have been tilting away from free trade for some time. As I wrote recently when Congress barely passed a trade agreement with Oman -- we're threatened by Omanian imports? -- Democrats have moved away from the Bill Clinton free trade model to a protectionist Dick Gephardt "fair trade" model that would insist upon unattainable environmental and labor standards from trading partners before we trade with them. This is protectionism with a nice coat of paint. But many Republicans have become just as protectionist, only they don't even bother to hide behind buzzwords; they come right out and say they're taking the short-term interest of protecting a handful of jobs rather than allowing the overall economic pie to grow.

Look, I'm not the first one to note the likelihood of trouble with trade policy in the next Congress; it's been all over the press. But I do fear for where we'll be come summer when the current fast-track authority expires and Nancy Pelosi has Charlie Rangel introduce a "fair trade" fast-track bill they both know will tie the hands of the USTR, be she the current one working for a Republican president or a possible future one working for a Democratic president.

I'm all for bipartisanship, and have called for it. But I'm not keen about bipartisan opposition to free trade. I'm not keen on bipartisan fear of trade with nations like Vietnam and Oman. I'm not keen on the bipartisan lack of confidence such a stance has in our economy and in our workers. And I'm not keen on where that leaves global IP enforcement, which has been central to all of the bilateral agreements approved since fast-track was last approved by Congress.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 2:32 PM | Legislation and Legislators

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)