Probably not, but the road may get even bumpier, according this report from the Wall Street Journal (page A1 in the print version):
Congressional approval of a trade pact with six small Central American countries nudged forward the Bush administration's free-trade agenda. But the close vote and bitter fight underscored anxiety about the pace of globalization and clouded prospects for approval of future deals...
But the push to encourage globalization is faltering elsewhere. In Geneva this week, the global trade talks being held under the auspices of the World Trade Organization and known as the Doha Round have been languishing, stymied by the reluctance of the U.S., Europe and others to make concessions, especially in the key area of slashing agricultural subsidies. And there is little visible movement toward the long-promised hemispheric Free Trade Area of the Americas. This effort to knock down trade barriers throughout North and South America began in late 1994 and missed its January 2005 target date for sealing a deal.
With scant progress in those areas, the close call with Cafta raised doubts around the world about the willingness of the U.S. Congress to take the politically painful steps that are sure to be part of any future trade deals. It may also encourage the move in other countries, particularly in Asia, to form free-trade zones that exclude the U.S...
Of particular concern to those who see virtue in globalization is the erosion of support among Democrats. The House vote was much more partisan than the 1993 vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which lowered trade barriers for the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Republicans voted 202 to 27 for Cafta. Democrats and the lone House independent voted 188 to 15 against it.
I'm not sure if this should encourage me or not...
Mr. Destler suggested that the partisanship may say more about the dynamics of Congress -- "where the parties don't talk to each other anymore" -- than partisan divisions among the public. A recent poll of 821 adults by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found 50% of self-described Republicans in favor of Cafta and 51% of Democrats.
While the poll found three-quarters "support the growth of international trade in principle," it picked up widespread dissatisfaction with "the way the U.S. government is dealing with the effects of trade on American jobs, the poor in other countries and the environment."
... as the conditionality of the support suggested by this poll is not necessarily inconsistent with the Congressional divide. In any event, these are definitely not encouraging words:
In Asia, the perception that American political support for globalization is weak could accelerate moves to form regional free-trade pacts that exclude the U.S. China reached a deal in November 2004 with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations to create one of the world's biggest free-trade areas by 2010 and is pursuing separate pacts with countries as distant as Chile. India is pursuing bilateral deals, too.
For Latin American governments mulling their own free-trade pacts with the U.S., the Cafta cliffhanger raised an unsettling question: If the tiny, ardently pro-U.S. economies of Central America can barely get a deal, what can we expect? That may make Latin leaders less willing to expend political capital at home to win approval for trade deals that grant greater access for U.S. goods. While individual countries like Panama will continue to seek bilateral pacts with the U.S., the Bush administration's already troubled plan for a Free Trade Area of the Americas faces an increasingly uncertain future.