Objet : [Cerchio di G8] ATTAC NEWSLETTER 78 - QUEBEC - GENOA SAND IN THE WHEELS (n°78) ATTAC Weekly newsletter - Wednesday 25/04/01 ______________________________ Please circulate and distribute. The Newsletter is received by 5 681 direct subscribers today. This weekly newsletter was put together by the " Sand in the Wheels " team of volunteers. To subscribe or unsubscribe To download printing : Format RTF or Format PDF Quarterly Reports International Trade & WTO - 1 Finance & Economy (to come) Debt & Development (to come) ____________________________________________________________ Content 1- Peaceful, violent protests mark 2nd day of FTAA summit 2- Draft FTAA Negotiating 3- WTO Tidbits 4- Genoa Social Forum 5- Using Monetary Fines in Trade Disputes ______________________________ 1- Peaceful, violent protests mark 2nd day of FTAA summit ____________________________________________________________ By Jennifer C. Berkshire and Ton Mashberg QUEBEC CITY -- While peaceful protesters and government potentates from across the Americas met in separate forums here yesterday to hash out the economic future of the hemisphere, a hard core of activists clashed with police for the second straight day amid tear gas and TV cameras. Dozens were injured, none seriously, according to police, who said about 150 arrests were made during the two days of conflict. The weekend gathering, called the Summit of the Americas, drew officials from 34 nations, including President George W. Bush. It also drew an estimated 30,000 protesters - 2,000 from New England - who marched and held rallies for two days to protest aspects of free trade that they deem harmful to workers and the environment. "It's been amazing - peaceful but militant," said Russ Davis of Arlington, Mass., state director of Jobs With Justice and organizer of the New England contingent. "We are here to dramatize the dangers that working people in the U.S. and other nations face if this deal goes through without accounting for workplace conditions, the environment and real living wages." At issue in the capital of French-speaking Canada is the so- called Free Trade Area of the Americas, a ballyhooed yet beleaguered effort to create a single economic entity stretching from Alaska and the Arctic Circle to the southern end of Argentina. Yesterday's protests - part carnival, part labor march, featuring cheerleaders with pompoms yelling antitrade slogans and a float bearing a guillotine draped with the American flag - contrasted with Friday's tumultuous, tear-gas-drenched standoff between protesters and Canadian police. Police yesterday did unleash rubber bullets, water cannons and tear gas against rock-throwing activists, and used snarling dogs to fend off demonstrators trying to pull down fencing at the perimeter of the official meeting halls. But peaceful ralliers refused to join in the theatrics. Many spoke dismissively of the self-described "Black Bloc" anarchists as "agents provocateurs" - and thus irrelevent to their true aim: seeking a trade accord that accommodates views and needs of non-governmental and non-business groups. "There are only a few of them," said Jacques Theoret, a spokesman for the Quebec Federation of Labor. "It is annoying that they are getting all of the attention." Canadian Police said yesterday that 30,000 protesters crowded near the summit site, and 2,000 engaged briefly in acts of intimidation. Including Friday's violence statistics, 34 police and 45 demonstrators have been injured, and 150 arrests made, police said. The rioters seemed intent on toppling a fence, tying a long rope to one section of it an attempt to tear it down. They also deployed wire cutters and tore at the barrier with their bare hands, but a secondary fence stood in the way. But no one joined in. At one point yesterday, a group of the black- clad rioters began to throw wooden barricades through the windows of a bank, shattering the glass. Other protesters quickly surrounded them and booed. "Go and confront the police!" admonished Sel Burrows, a 57-year- old retiree from Thompson, Canada. "Don't destroy property. It gives us all a bad image." "They're just crazies," he added loudly to reporters. "They don't represent the rest of us." Cathy Ferreira, a 38-year-old graduate student at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell and a single mother of four, said she hoped New Englanders would be able to see past the police clashes and try to understand what the protests were about. She says a trade agreement could threaten the public education system. "There's a push to make public services private," she said. "That's a big part of this trade deal." Raytheon employee Barry Richards, who traveled to Quebec with 25 co-workers Friday night, said that like many, he wanted to know what was in the agreement, which has been negotiated in secret by trade ministers from the member nations. "If it's such a good deal," he asked, "then why won't they show us what's in it?" Canadian officials said this month a draft of the FTAA pact would be made public, but no date has been set for its unveiling. Joining union members from Massachusetts here were students from all over New England, too. Phoebe Ryles and Princess MacLean, both seniors at Brookline High School, almost decided against the trip after watching news coverage of Friday's clashes. "I was a little afraid," said Ryles. "But if you don't fight things that you don't believe in, whose going to do it for you?" Davis of Jobs With Justice said opponents of the trade agreement are long past defending "protectionism" - a form of international commerce in which nations establish artificial barriers to trade such as tariffs or quotas. "We're not against `globilization,'" he said, using a term for abandonment of trade barriers. "We are just against it when it benefits a few. We want workers in all these nations to realize that they have to organize politically to stand up for their rights." With the streets of this 17th century capital roiled in conflict, the 34 presidents and prime ministers meeting on trade also discussed education, drug trafficking and human rights from their posh hotel conference center. But with the words "Trade equals tyranny!" scribbled in red on the wall of one downtown business, some leaders felt compelled to address demonstrators' varied and virulent grievances. "True - globalization has brought prosperity to some, but we cannot deny it has destroyed the lives of others," said St. Lucia Premier Kenny Anthony. "Until the hemisphere as a whole enjoys the fruits of trade liberalization, we cannot proclaim its glory." Said Mexican President Vicente Fox: "Trade has helped people in Latin America, but it has failed to root out poverty. There's much to celebrate, but much to lament." Overall, the street fighting so far this weekend is but a dim echo of the violence that disrupted world trade talks in Seattle in 1999. Many of the black-clad anarchists roaming through the city appeared simply to be along for the ride, taking advantage of the bigger demonstration to cause havoc. But to Russ Davis of Jobs With Justice, the Quebec rallies are the start of a more coordinated effort by labor groups to confront aspects of trade policy from an orderly and influential posture. "With enough public pressure," he said, "what is already a fragile endeavor for Latin nations who feel they are being muscled into it by the U.S. will draw strength from this popular resistance and put the kiss of death to this thing." Boston Herald; Boston, Mass.; Apr 22, 2001.Copyright Boston Herald Library Apr 22, 2001. JENNIFER BERKSHIRE, US Correspondent for ATTAC and TOM MASHBERG Photos of the demonstrations on ATTAC Website ______________________________ 2- Draft FTAA Negotiating ____________________________________________________________ In keeping with the mandate of the Ministers Responsible for Trade given at their meeting held in Toronto in November 1999 to prepare a draft text of the chapter on investment; the guidelines outlined at the San José Ministerial in March 1998; and the work programme agreed to at the meeting of the TNC held in Buenos Aires in June of 1998 to "develop a framework incorporating comprehensive rights and obligations on investment, taking into consideration the substantive areas already identified by the FTAA Working Group on Investment," and to "develop a methodology to consider potential reservations and exceptions to the obligations;" the Negotiating Group on Investment (NGIN) prepared a draft chapter on investment for the FTAA Agreement. Following is a report of the Group's activities, during the second phase of the negotiations, prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the TNC as outlined in Document FTAA.TNC/11/Cor.1.: PART I: DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT a) Description of the Negotiating Group Activities Since the Toronto Ministerial Meeting, the NGIN has met on five occasions (February 15, 2000, May 22-24, 2000, August 14-15, 2000, October 9-10, 2000, and November 27-29, 2000) with a wide participation of FTAA countries, whether directly or through sub-regional delegations. In keeping with the mandate of Ministers, the NGIN advanced its work on the development of "a framework incorporating comprehensive rights and obligations on investment, taking into consideration the substantive areas already identified by the FTAA Working Group on Investment" (FTAA.TNC/01). The Group discussed the twelve (12) substantive issues identified by the Working Group on Investment as issues that might, in principle, be included in the FTAA Chapter on Investment. The NGIN agreed on the following work methodology: i) Preparation of the draft chapter based on initial submissions on the twelve (12) substantive issues by delegations and discussions at the NGIN meetings. Submission by delegations prior to each meeting of their initial proposals to the Chair by a specific date. ii) Preparation by the Chair of a consolidated text of these initial proposals, which was circulated to delegations prior to each meeting. iii) Discussion by delegations of a consolidated text in plenary and bilateral sessions, review of initial proposals, and reduction in the number of brackets in the document by merging positions, where possible. iv) Agreement by the Group, acting on the advice of the Trade Negotiations Committee, to consider the issue of the treatment of the differences in levels of development and size of economies in a cross-cutting manner. The work of the NGIN also included a presentation by the representative of the U.N. Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) on "Foreign Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean" and a presentation by the delegation of Mexico on the "Methodology for the Registration and Preparation of Statistical Information on Foreign Direct Investment in Mexico." The Group also agreed that the studies prepared by the Tripartite Committee, entitled "Investment Agreements in the Western Hemisphere: A Compendium" and "Foreign Investment Regimes in the Americas: A Comparative Study" would be updated regularly. b) Assessment on the Progress Accomplished The NGIN made significant progress on the first element of its work programme to "develop a framework incorporating comprehensive rights and obligations on investment, taking into consideration the substantive areas already identified by the FTAA Working Group on Investment" (FTAA.TNC/01). The draft chapter contained in Part II of this Report shows initial proposals presented by some delegations. In addition to the twelve substantive issues that were originally agreed in the context of the mandate of the Ministers to the NGIN, in the course of the negotiations various delegations submitted nine new issues 1 for consideration by the Group. No consensus was reached on whether these issues fall within the scope of the negotiation. The matter was considered subsequently at the TNC's fifth and sixth meetings and given that no consensus was reached on the inclusion of proposals, the NGIN reiterated its request that the issues be again addressed at the seventh meeting of the TNC to be held in Lima, Peru in January 2001. As negotiations progress the need for greater interaction among Negotiating Groups will intensify. The NGIN would wish to suggest therefore that there is a need for consideration of the following by Ministers: i) The linkage between the Negotiating Group on Investment and many of the other Negotiating Groups which calls for an enhanced coordination between these Groups to facilitate the consideration of issues that may fall under their purview. ii) The treatment of issues that are horizontal in nature but fall within the mandate of various Groups. c) Report on Modalities and Procedures for the Negotiations The second element of the NGIN work programme is to "develop a methodology to consider potential reservations and exceptions to the obligations" (FTAA.TNC/01). The issues of reservations and exceptions were discussed by the NGIN and initial proposals are included in the draft text. The precise modalities and procedures for negotiations will be determined by the Group as soon as possible within the next negotiating phase. In this regard, the Group considers that enhanced coordination with the Negotiating Group on Services should be taken into consideration. For the purposes of guiding future stages of the negotiation, the TNC may wish to provide direction with respect to a methodology for enhancing the work of the Group, and in so doing it may also give due consideration to timeframes and adequate frequency of meetings. The Group understands that the guidance of the TNC regarding the advisability of establishing a timeframe with respect to the development of the methodology for considering potential reservations and exceptions would be useful. Full document: http://attac.org/fra/libe/doc/ftaa.htm ______________________________ 3- WTO Tidbits ____________________________________________________________ By omc.Marseille@attac.org 1) Room for NGOs at the Ministerial Conference at Doha (Qatar) According to the WTO, a Centre for NGOs will be available at Doha for representatives of civil society. It will include facilities for meetings and press conferences. The Fair Hall, where the NGO Centre will be installed, is a two-minute walk from Convention Center where the Ministerial Conference will be held. 4.400 rooms will be available to house participants (delegates, observers, press and NGOs). The WTO thinks the number will be sufficient, but it maybe necessary to limit the number of participants (!) The WTO has also announced the creation of an 'inter-division operational group' to manage WTO/NGO relations. The WTO looks on this group as a new way of tackling the challenge of interactions between the WTO and civil society. The committee will have the job of presenting ideas and devising means and strategies to enable interaction with NGOs by means of workshops and symposiums, and improve relations by using the WTO website and its "chats". It will include about a dozen representatives of the main WTO divisions and will report to the Director-General; it will act as coordinator for activities of concern to NGOs. (This is what is called "squaring the field" !) Requests from NGOs to attend the Conference will be considered from the beginning of May. 2) Developing countries are against the "social label" now being put on a legal footing in Belgium Egypt, Hong Kong, Brazil, India, Argentina, Malaya (representing the ASEAN) and Pakistan are among those which condemn the law being drawn up with the intention of creating a label for goods and services produced in a socially responsible way. According to Malaya, this is a subject to be treated at the ILO, not the WTO. The EU, speaking for Belgium, explained that obtaining the label would be voluntary and that no one would incur sanctions; only Belgian goods would be affected. Another debate going on before the TOTs (Technical Obstacles to Trade) Committee is about the eco-label on products made of wood (in the context of the law on "reponsible forestry maintenance") which is shortly to be presented to the upper chamber of the Dutch parliament. Malaya (supported by Brazil and Canada) argued before the Committee that this measure would be discriminatory and represent an obstacle to trade. 3) Disagreement at the Codex on the subject of traceability If the general opinion is that significant progress has been made in establishing international norms for products derived from biotechnology, no consensus has yet been obtained on traceability, mainly because of disagreements between the EU and the US. The failure to include this measure has been mainly due to the opposition of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Indonesia. Some countries consider that traceability is too costly and is anyway unnecessary. A complete report can be found at : www.who.int/fsf/Gmfood/ 4) In Asia, NGOs oppose the launch of a new round The NGO alliance headed by Third World Network considers that the efforts of the EU in favour of a new round, to include competition, investments, and public markets, are unjustified and liable to cause economic, social and environmental harm. The alliance further affirms that the Director General of the WTO, Mike Moore, has overstepped his brief in attempting to stimulate enthusiasm for the new round, given that all countries do not give it their support. 5) The guide adopted for negotiations on services This recorded agreement is a strong signal that member states are ready and willing to advance towards negotiations even in the absence of a new Round. The Director of the Services Division (who previously complained that the anti-GATS campaign, premeditated in his view, considerably distorted the intentions of those who were urging the project forward) qualified the agreement as "good news", adding that "everyone can see it as opening a new phase of negotiations". The guide adopted mainly refers to existing clauses of the GATS. The developing countries have succeeded, for their part, in obtaining "an appropriate flexibility" in negotiations on the Most Favoured Nation exemptions. During the meeting at the end of March to draw up the annual progress report, discussions concentrated on the nature and timing of work to be done during the Special Session. Seventy propositions were presented by more that 40 countries. This considerable number was seen as a sign that the negotiators wanted to make progress. But some delegations privately expressed their consternation at the predominance of propositions from developed countries and their doubt as to whether developing countries would manage to get progress on propositions corresponding to their interests. Work group "International Treaties", omc.marseille@attac.org ______________________________ 4- Genoa Social Forum ____________________________________________________________ To Associations NGOs International Networks Unions Political organisations We are writing you on behalf of many Genoese and Italian organisations working together to build a co-ordinate framework for the protest against the G8 Summit, which will be held in Genoa on 20 - 22 July 2001. We have signed the enclosed document, and in the past few months we have been negotiating with the local and national authorities in order to find areas and sites for the activities and events to be held on those days. We are willing to make an international call for a strong mobilitation and a large participation. We know that many organization all over Europe and the world are already planning to come to Genoa to demonstrate, on the basis of the final Porto Alegre social movements declaration. In order to organize and co-ordinate international efforts in the best way, we are organizing an international meeting to be held in Genoa on 4 and 5 May. The official language of the meeting will be English. Details on the already planned activities will follow ASAP together with all information about the meeting (schedule, time, venue, etc.). Please circulate this letter among all those who may be concerned. To join us, to make suggestions, or to get information, please e-mail to genoasocialforum@libero.it Further information are also available at www.genoa-g8.org (under construction). If you are interested, we invite your organization to subscribe our document "A different world is possible". GENOA SOCIAL FORUM Genoa, 20-22 July 2001 A different world is possible Introduction The world in which the Genoa G8 Summit is to be held is one full of striking injustices. 20% of the world population - in countries with advanced capitalism - wastes 83% of the resources of our planet; 11 million children die every year of malnutrition and 1.3 billion children live on less than one dollar per day. This situation does not improve: on the contrary, it is getting worse and worse. Thanks to its international relevance, this summit is a challenge to all those organisations that for a long time have undertaken to assert - with different methods and priorities- principles of social justice and solidarity, as well as fair and sustainable development. The challenge must be met! We must contribute all together to make the different projects known, which deal with such matters as international co-operation, environmental protection, citizens' and workers' rights, promotion of ethical and solidaristic economic models, and development of multiethnic communities, support peace and fight against injustice. These experiences must help society to grow, spurring it to develop, by July 2001, initiatives aimed at increasing the public awareness of this unacceptable situation and at denouncing it. It is necessary to develop a new way of thinking in order to respond to the dominant cultural models that - through growing social disruption - hinder even the dream of a better society. Yet, a different world is possible! This is the meaning of the challenge for the citizens to accept. The international organisations, upon which the attention of a growing global movement is focussing, should be forced to take into account the demands of an ever more attentive population, determined to ask for real democracy and new social and economical justice. Work Agreement For aforesaid reasons, the signatory organisations commit themselves to a work agreement whose objectives are as follows: 1. raising the citizens' awareness of the different themes each association focuses on, respecting their individual methods and procedures; 2. asking the local and national authorities to grant everybody wide spaces for activities, projects and demonstrations to be organised before and during the Summit; above all, demanding that the right to demonstrate not be subjected to arbitrary restrictions; 3. acting in a co-ordinate way in order to favour a smooth flowing of information and to foster all the initiatives in the program; 4. respecting all open and transparent forms of expression, protest and direct and non-violent action. Through this document the signatory organisations invite all interested organisations and networks as well as those who are already working against the G8 Summit, to meet soon in order to better co-ordinate their energies and purposes, to start a dialogue with the scientific and political circles, to pursue the above mentioned goals as effectively as possible. Local Signatories: ACLI - Altrimondi - ARCI Nuova Associazione - Arciragazzi - ASSEFA - Associazione Agire Politicamente - Associazione Città Aperta - Associazione Medici per l'Ambiente - SDE - Associazione per il Rinnovamento della Sinistra - Bambini Vittime - Banca Etica - Circoscrizione Locale di Genova e Imperia - CEDRITT - Centro Cooperazione Sviluppo - Centro Sociale Talpa e Orologio - Centro Sociale Terra di Nessuno - Centro Sociale apata - Circolo ARCI Mascherona 16 - COGEDE - Consorzio Sociale Agorà - COSPE - Federazione Chiese Evangeliche Liguria - Federazione Giovani Socialisti - Federazione Regionale Solidarietà e Lavoro - ICS - Consorzio Italiano di Solidarietà - Il Ce.sto - ISCOS CISL Liguria - La Rete per il Partito Democratico Liguria - Lavoratori della Libreria Feltrinelli - Legacoop Liguria - Comparto Cooperative Sociali - Legambiente Regionale Liguria - LOC - Lega Obiettori di Coscienza - Mani Tese - Marea - Movimento Federalista Europeo - Partito Rifondazione Comunista - Planet - Progetto Continenti - Rete ControG8 - Rete Lilliput - Sinistra Giovanile - Sondagenova - UISP - Ya Basta! - First National Signatories: Altrimondi - ARCI Nuova Associazione - Arciragazzi - Associazione Botteghe del Mondo - Associazione Coordinamento Pace - Associazione Italiana Amici di Raoul ollereau - Associazione per la Pace - Associazione Tatavasco - ATLHA - Associazione Tempo Libero Handicappati - AYUSYA - Beati i costruttori di pace - Bilanci di Giustizia - Campagna Chiama L'Africa - Campagna Dire mai al MAI - Stop Millennium Round - Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale - Campagna Sdebitarsi - Carta - Cantieri Sociali - Centro Nuovo Modello di Sviluppo - Centro Sociale Leoncavallo - CGD - Coordinamento Genitori Democratici - Coalizione Italiana Contro la Pena di Morte - COCORICO - COnsumatori COnsapevoli RIciclanti COmpatibili - Comitato per la Globalizzazione dei Diritti (TO) - Consorzio CTM Altomercato - Cooperativa Roba dell'Altro Mondo - COSPE - Democrazia Popolare - Federazione Chiese Evangeliche - Federazione dei Verdi - Federazione Giovani ocialisti - Giovani Comuniste e Comunisti - ICEI - Istituto Cooperazione Internazionale - ICS - Consorzio Italiano di olidarietà - IRED Nord - Lega Missionaria Studenti - Legambiente - LILA - Lunaria - Mani Tese - Nigrizia - Partito Rifondazione Comunista - Pax Christi - Rete ControG8 - Rete delle Marce uropee - Rete Lilliput - Rete Lilliput (SV) - Rete Radie Resch - S.in.COBAS - Tavola della Pace - Sinistra Giovanile - UISP - Unione degli Studenti - WWF - Ya Basta! First International Signatories: Casa da Mulher Oito de Março (BR) - Forum Nord Sud (BE) - Marches européennes contre le chomage, la précarité et les exclusions (FR) - MNC - Mouvement National des Consommateurs (CM) - National Coordination in Greece - Campaign Genoa 2001 (GR) ______________________________ 5- Using Monetary Fines in Trade Disputes ____________________________________________________________ By USTR (Internal Concept Paper) USING MONETARY ASSESSMENTS TO ENFORCE PANEL DECISIONS UNDER BILATERAL FREE-TRADE AGREEMENTS This paper explores how 1) monetary assessments could be used in place of trade sanctions to secure compliance with dispute settlement panel decisions under U.S. bilateral free- trade agreements (FTAs); 2) an agreement with U.S. FTA trading partners to use monetary assessments could be memorialized; and 3) federal law would need to be arranged to put such a system into effect. 1. How Monetary Assessments Would Work a. Summary of FTA Dispute Settlement Procedures The United States is currently a party to one bilateral free-trade agreement (with Israel) and has signed another (with Jordan). Procedures for resolving disputes under the two agreements are very similar. Under those procedures, when a dispute arises between the two governments regarding the agreement they must first try to settle their differences through consultations. If consultations are unavailing, either side may refer the dispute to an ad hoc three-person dispute settlement panel. A panel may hear disputes over whether a party has 1) breached its FTA obligations; or 2) taken action that "severely distorts the balance of trade benefits" provided under the agreement or "substantially undermines the fundamental objectives" of the agreement. Once the panel has heard the matter, it issues a non-binding report to the two governments setting out its factual findings and legal determinations. The report may also include recommendations for resolving the dispute. After the panel has issued its report, the two governments may seek to resolve the dispute through further consultations. As a practical matter, consultations are likely to be held only in cases where the panel has sided with the complaining party. To settle the dispute, the parties may agree that the defending country will change its laws or regulations, provide trade "compensation" to the complaining government, or take any other action that the complaining government finds sufficient. Alternatively, the dispute may be left unresolved, with no further action by either side. If the parties cannot reach agreement on settlement and the "affected party" wishes to pursue the matter further, it may take "any appropriate measure" (Israel) or "any appropriate and commensurate measure" (Jordan). While these phrases are not defined, they allow for a range of possible remedies, including the withdrawal of proportionate trade concessions (i.e., limited trade retaliation). b. Including a Monetary Assessments System in a Bilateral FTA Free-trade agreements, such as the U.S.-Israel and U.S.-Jordan FTAs, normally contemplate that the complaining government may enforce a panel decision in its favor by taking action against the other party if settlement discussions are unproductive. Under a system of monetary assessments, by contrast, the defending party would be expected to take action -- namely, pay an assessment -- in such circumstances. Thus, an assessments-based system would represent a departure from the "self- help" approach to enforcement built into current agreements. In addition, to guard against the possibility that the defending party may fail to pay an assessment levied against it, there may be a need to back up monetary assessments with some other enforcement procedure. To graft an assessments-based enforcement system onto existing U.S. FTAs, the parties would need to agree that: 1) the complaining party may seek, and the defending party must pay, an assessment if the two governments cannot resolve their differences following a panel ruling in favor of the complaining government; and 2) trade sanctions are not included among the field of measures the complaining country may take to enforce a panel decision. c. How the System Might Operate There is a variety of ways to structure an assessments-based enforcement system. Perhaps the most straightforward system would operate along the following lines. First, the dispute settlement rules would allow the complaining government to seek a monetary assessment when: 1) the panel has issued a report that is adverse to the defending party; 2) a fixed period has elapsed after the report has been issued; and 3) the parties have not been able to settle their differences. The complaining government would not be required to seek an assessment and might choose at least initially to threaten an assessment rather than seek one. If the complaining government decided to seek an assessment, the two governments would have an agreed period (say, 30 days) to consult on the amount. The assessment level could be pegged to the amount of trade (or royalties, sales, etc., in the case of disputes involving intellectual property or services) that the defending government's action (or inaction) affected. For the sake of simplicity, it might be appropriate to set the amount of the assessment at a percentage (say, 50%) of the actual dollar amount of trade or commerce affected. (For larger FTAs it might also make sense to place a ceiling on assessments.) Thus, for example, if Jordan were to violate its FTA obligations by failing to eliminate or reduce a tariff on computers, and that failure has effectively reduced U.S. computer exports to Jordan by $12 million per year, the assessment would be set at half that amount. To induce compliance, the assessment could be due in periodic (e.g., quarterly) installments and might be automatically renewed each year until Jordan eliminates or reduces its computer tariff or the dispute is settled in another way. To make this system work, the parties would need to have the ability to go back to the dispute settlement panel to decide disagreements over the applicable assessment. Once the parties agree on the amount of the assessment, or the panel sets the amount, the defending government would be required to pay the assessment (or the first installment) within a set period, say 90 days. This short delay would provide a final opportunity for settlement negotiations. If appropriate, a back-up system could be [words illegible] to address the possibility that the defending government might fail to pay an assessment. One possibility would be to preclude the defending party from initiating panel proceedings under the FTA until the assessment is paid or the dispute is settled. A back-up system may not be necessary for FTAs where the likelihood of a government will default on its obligation to pay an assessment is slight. d. Setting Assessments in Labor and Environment Disputes The U.S.-Jordan FTA includes provisions regarding labor and environmental law enforcement. In particular, the agreement prohibits the two governments from failing to effectively enforce their labor and environmental laws, through a sustained or recurring course of action, in a manner affecting bilateral trade. It is noteworthy that this obligation arises only where the alleged enforcement failure has a bilateral trade effect. This means that in disputes regarding the adequacy of an FTA government's labor and environment law enforcement efforts, it would be possible to key monetary assessments to the amount of bilateral trade that the alleged enforcement failure has affected. In principle then, a system in which assessments are pegged to a percentage of the trade effect that a breach of the agreement has engendered could work for both pure trade disputes under the Jordan FTA and disputes arising under the FTA's environmental and labor obligations. It is worth observing that the NAFTA and Canada-Chile supplemental labor and environment agreements use a different approach for setting assessments. They give dispute settlement panels the authority to determine assessment levels based on general guidelines related to the defending party's conduct. Under the NAFTA supplemental agreements, assessments may not exceed an amount equal to .007 percent of total trade in goods between the parties concerned for the most recent year. This means that the current ceiling for assessments in disputes between the United States and Canada is about $29 million; $17 million for disputes between the United States and Mexico. The Canada-Chile supplemental labor and environment agreements limit assessments to $10 million. 2. Memorializing an Agreement to Use Assessments In future bilateral FTAs that the United States negotiates, an assessment-based enforcement procedure could be made an integral part of the agreements' dispute settlement mechanisms. There would be several ways to build a system of assessments into existing U.S. bilateral FTAs. The two most obvious alternatives would be: 1) directly to amend the texts of the agreements; or 2) conclude separate understandings on how the enforcement provisions of the FTAs will operate. Under the latter approach, the parties would make clear that "appropriate [and commensurate] action" by the "affected party" would exclude trade sanctions and include assessments. While amending the FTA itself would be the most direct way to proceed from a legal perspective, it could lead to demands from our trading partners to reopen other aspects of the agreements. For that reason, among others, the most advisable procedure for establishing an assessment-based enforcement system would be to conclude a separate understanding. 3. How Federal Law Would Need to be Changed and Applied Legislation would be required to pay an assessment assessed against the United States under a bilateral FTA. Congress could provide funding by: 1) authorizing one or more federal agencies to pay any assessments and appropriating the money to do so; or 2) making the "judgment fund" (28 U.S.C 2414) available to pay assessments. The judgment fund authorizes the Treasury Department to pay "final judgments rendered by a foreign tribunal against the United States". Before payment is made, the Attorney General must certify that the payment is in the U.S. interest. In order to invoke the judgment fund to pay an assessment assessed under a bilateral FTA, the assessment would need to be a "final judgment" of the dispute settlement panel. To achieve that result, the FTA's dispute settlement provisions would need to be changed (either directly or through a supplemental understanding) to specify that: 1) the panel's rulings are to be considered final and binding; and 2) any assessment assessed against the defending party flows directly from those rulings. It also may be necessary to provide that dispute settlement panels are selected from standing rosters rather than on a purely ad hoc basis. To make monies available from the fund, Congress could enact specific legislation making clear that the judgment fund is available. Legislation of this sort would fall within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committees. Alternatively, it is possible that judgment fund may be available to pay assessment assessed against the United States if Congress specifically approves the assessment-based enforcement system included in the FTA or in a supplemental understanding establishing such a system. Such an approval would evince Congressional intent to implement the monetary assessments procedure, including the payment of an assessment that a panel assesses as part of a final judgment against the United States.