The Free Trade Agreement with the United States
On February 17, 2006, five years ago, the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Colombia was signed, after 21 months of negotiations, 15 rounds and 100 meetings (just to mention the formal meetings). The reader can imagine the countless agreements that had to be produced so that all the unions of the country could be in agreement. To enter this agreement into force, ratification by the congresses of both countries is needed. In June 2007 the treaty was ratified by Colombia’s Congress; however, it has not been approved by the U.S. Congress.
Just as the most unsuspecting person can imagine, an asymmetry exists in the bargaining. Colombia, as the weakest actor in the negotiation, had to accept some impositions on the agricultural matter and on the field of patents, which were hard to swallow for our negotiators. When a heavyweight and a tiny fly sit down to negotiate, it is impossible to reach an agreement that strikes the absolute balance, despite the fact that the treaty that was signed benefits Colombian business, allowing permanent access to the richest market in the world, with which many of our Latin American colleagues like Mexico, Central America, Peru and Chile already have similar agreements — and the uncertainty of obtaining the extension is avoided, time to time, from ATPDEA (Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act).
For five years the rulers of our country have made all sorts of measures so that the United States will ratify it. What is behind such obvious reluctance? The Democratic Party has opposed the treaty with Colombia. Its most prominent leaders have said so. Statements made by Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, have been repetitive. It is also the influence of the unions, an important source of votes for Democrats. Its conviction is that the economic treaties undermine employment. To violate the treaty they use the argument that Colombian unionists suffer from insecurity, like many other citizens, as a result of this absurd degradation of respect for life that overwhelms us, largely the product of drug trafficking, that the same Americans support through the consumption of cocaine.
Colombia has been a faithful ally of the United States for a long time. With their help and solidarity we have fought against the scourge of drugs. The ATPDEA was a unilateral trade concession created in 1991 with the purpose of compensating Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia in their fight against the scourge of drugs. For being free and temporary is not stable. This year it has not been renewed, and those who depend on its ratification to export now find themselves helpless. With the new treaty, the ATPDEA will no longer be necessary.
Fortunately, last week in an interview with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, President Barack Obama personally promised to promote the Free Trade Agreement between our countries. It is credited to President Santos’ good offices for obtaining the approval of the most important authority in the United States, and to President Obama's will to rectify. During his election campaign he was firmly opposed to the treaty.
It is worth nothing that this treaty, which still lacks the U.S. Congress’ ratification, has been granted a transcendence that it lacks. It is not an economic cure; although the country benefits, it is not going to produce substantial change.
Just as the most unsuspecting person can imagine, an asymmetry exists in the bargaining. Colombia, as the weakest actor in the negotiation, had to accept some impositions on the agricultural matter and on the field of patents, which were hard to swallow for our negotiators. When a heavyweight and a tiny fly sit down to negotiate, it is impossible to reach an agreement that strikes the absolute balance, despite the fact that the treaty that was signed benefits Colombian business, allowing permanent access to the richest market in the world, with which many of our Latin American colleagues like Mexico, Central America, Peru and Chile already have similar agreements — and the uncertainty of obtaining the extension is avoided, time to time, from ATPDEA (Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act).
For five years the rulers of our country have made all sorts of measures so that the United States will ratify it. What is behind such obvious reluctance? The Democratic Party has opposed the treaty with Colombia. Its most prominent leaders have said so. Statements made by Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, have been repetitive. It is also the influence of the unions, an important source of votes for Democrats. Its conviction is that the economic treaties undermine employment. To violate the treaty they use the argument that Colombian unionists suffer from insecurity, like many other citizens, as a result of this absurd degradation of respect for life that overwhelms us, largely the product of drug trafficking, that the same Americans support through the consumption of cocaine.
Colombia has been a faithful ally of the United States for a long time. With their help and solidarity we have fought against the scourge of drugs. The ATPDEA was a unilateral trade concession created in 1991 with the purpose of compensating Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia in their fight against the scourge of drugs. For being free and temporary is not stable. This year it has not been renewed, and those who depend on its ratification to export now find themselves helpless. With the new treaty, the ATPDEA will no longer be necessary.
Fortunately, last week in an interview with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, President Barack Obama personally promised to promote the Free Trade Agreement between our countries. It is credited to President Santos’ good offices for obtaining the approval of the most important authority in the United States, and to President Obama's will to rectify. During his election campaign he was firmly opposed to the treaty.
It is worth nothing that this treaty, which still lacks the U.S. Congress’ ratification, has been granted a transcendence that it lacks. It is not an economic cure; although the country benefits, it is not going to produce substantial change.