U.S. Free Trade Agreement: It’s Not the End of the World
Published in El Mundo
(Colombia) on 17 February 2011
by (link to original)
Gabriel Silva, Colombia’s ambassador to the United States, couldn’t be more right when he warns that the Colombian people are beginning to lose patience with the delay in the ratification of the free trade agreement (FTA), an impatience that is now being exacerbated by the expiration of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), which is understood to be not a gracious concession but a commitment by the North American state to share equally in the costly war against drug trafficking waged by the Andean countries and has been honored by President Obama’s predecessors going back to the ‘90s.
The reluctance to put the FTA to a vote in Congress, despite having a sure majority in the House and major support in the Senate, as well as the lack of interest in spearheading a bipartisan agreement to extend the ATPDEA, are clear proof that, in spite of the promising rhetoric used to explain the delays in reaching a decision, the Obama administration does not seem to care what happens to Colombia. This is quite short-sighted, since, as our ambassador points out, extending tariff reductions not only benefits the Andean countries but also the U.S., where unemployment is growing and, in sectors such as textiles and flowers, many jobs there depend on the importation of our products under the ATPDEA framework. For example, the ambassador points out, “For every job in the flower industry in Colombia, there are three jobs further up the value chain in the United States. This comes to 200,000 jobs.”
Two of the ambassador’s most important tasks in Washington are to promote the extension of ATPDEA, and the FTA. He is doing so with his customary diligence and honesty, calling things by their names, as when he said the follwing recently: “If in 2011 the ratification really does not happen, it is quite possible that it will be Colombia who will say that this will go no further.” And even though he admits that Secretary of State Clinton is in favor of the agreement, his perception, with which we agree, is that “the heart of the United States is divided between those who respond to pressure from the unions and those who place more importance on business and foreign relations.” What is troubling, we would add, is that President Obama appears to be more committed to the former group.
In Colombia, the clarity of the ambassador’s position has awoken certain suspicions, and some have even tried to interpret it as a sign of conflict within the government. One morning talk radio pundit posited the idea that María Ángela Holguín, Minister of Foreign Affairs, had somehow disavowed the ambassador’s position. On the contrary, if we have seen a consensus among politicians on anything, it has been the FTA. For the Minister, the importance of the FTA for the country is indisputable, but “we cannot keep begging forever.” Colombian newspaper El Espectador asked Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism Sergio Díaz-Granados if the government supports the declarations of Ambassador Gabriel Silva. His answer was: “I share much of Ambassador Silva’s understanding, and we are in constant communication … We would prefer that the treaty be approved on a definite date, preferably in 2011. I believe that at bottom the ambassador’s message, which I share, is that Colombia will not be paralyzed by the absence of an FTA with the United States.”
We accompanied the Minister when he made his request to the Constitutional Court that they review as soon as possible the treaties with Canada and the European Free Trade Association, made up of Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, since “to the degree that some trading partners delay, it gives an opportunity to others.” He stated that a large part of the market that the U.S. had in Colombia is being lost to Brazil and Argentina. “We need the FTA with the United States, but that does not mean that we will stop developing our human and technical resources while we await its approval.” It doesn’t get any clearer than this.
Another declaration by Ambassador Silva, which we hope will penetrate certain Washington circles that seem to be sleeping before the advance of the Chinese hurricane, was when he noted that when the negotiations of the U.S. FTA began, China was Colombia’s 12th largest trading partner. It is now number two. We do not want China to ever overtake the U.S. for first place, but it is also clear that we would not have the same criteria in negotiating a free trade agreement with China or Korea if the US closes its market, because, in the end, the whole point of an FTA is to be able to enter their market without tariffs, and for them to have reciprocal treatment here. But if they shut us out, we will have to find a place to sell what we have been selling to the gringos, and a place to buy what we have been buying from them, under the best possible conditions and under the rules of free trade. It’s as simple as that.
The reluctance to put the FTA to a vote in Congress, despite having a sure majority in the House and major support in the Senate, as well as the lack of interest in spearheading a bipartisan agreement to extend the ATPDEA, are clear proof that, in spite of the promising rhetoric used to explain the delays in reaching a decision, the Obama administration does not seem to care what happens to Colombia. This is quite short-sighted, since, as our ambassador points out, extending tariff reductions not only benefits the Andean countries but also the U.S., where unemployment is growing and, in sectors such as textiles and flowers, many jobs there depend on the importation of our products under the ATPDEA framework. For example, the ambassador points out, “For every job in the flower industry in Colombia, there are three jobs further up the value chain in the United States. This comes to 200,000 jobs.”
Two of the ambassador’s most important tasks in Washington are to promote the extension of ATPDEA, and the FTA. He is doing so with his customary diligence and honesty, calling things by their names, as when he said the follwing recently: “If in 2011 the ratification really does not happen, it is quite possible that it will be Colombia who will say that this will go no further.” And even though he admits that Secretary of State Clinton is in favor of the agreement, his perception, with which we agree, is that “the heart of the United States is divided between those who respond to pressure from the unions and those who place more importance on business and foreign relations.” What is troubling, we would add, is that President Obama appears to be more committed to the former group.
In Colombia, the clarity of the ambassador’s position has awoken certain suspicions, and some have even tried to interpret it as a sign of conflict within the government. One morning talk radio pundit posited the idea that María Ángela Holguín, Minister of Foreign Affairs, had somehow disavowed the ambassador’s position. On the contrary, if we have seen a consensus among politicians on anything, it has been the FTA. For the Minister, the importance of the FTA for the country is indisputable, but “we cannot keep begging forever.” Colombian newspaper El Espectador asked Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism Sergio Díaz-Granados if the government supports the declarations of Ambassador Gabriel Silva. His answer was: “I share much of Ambassador Silva’s understanding, and we are in constant communication … We would prefer that the treaty be approved on a definite date, preferably in 2011. I believe that at bottom the ambassador’s message, which I share, is that Colombia will not be paralyzed by the absence of an FTA with the United States.”
We accompanied the Minister when he made his request to the Constitutional Court that they review as soon as possible the treaties with Canada and the European Free Trade Association, made up of Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, since “to the degree that some trading partners delay, it gives an opportunity to others.” He stated that a large part of the market that the U.S. had in Colombia is being lost to Brazil and Argentina. “We need the FTA with the United States, but that does not mean that we will stop developing our human and technical resources while we await its approval.” It doesn’t get any clearer than this.
Another declaration by Ambassador Silva, which we hope will penetrate certain Washington circles that seem to be sleeping before the advance of the Chinese hurricane, was when he noted that when the negotiations of the U.S. FTA began, China was Colombia’s 12th largest trading partner. It is now number two. We do not want China to ever overtake the U.S. for first place, but it is also clear that we would not have the same criteria in negotiating a free trade agreement with China or Korea if the US closes its market, because, in the end, the whole point of an FTA is to be able to enter their market without tariffs, and for them to have reciprocal treatment here. But if they shut us out, we will have to find a place to sell what we have been selling to the gringos, and a place to buy what we have been buying from them, under the best possible conditions and under the rules of free trade. It’s as simple as that.
Previous article![]( "What Interesting People These Americans Are …")
Next article![]( "Central Asian States of America")
