European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.
Rym Momtaz
REQUIRED IMAGE
A free trade agreement between the United States and the Andean countries has the potential not only to increase trade and promote economic growth, but also to develop stability and democracy in the Andes. However, if the negotiations are treated as a zero-sum competition, the agreement has the potential to undermine those very goals.
The United States and the Andean countries of Ecuador, Colombia and Peru are meeting this week in Washington to continue negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement. Significant issues remain to be resolved, particularly in the areas of agriculture, intellectual property, labor standards, and environmental requirements. Yet negotiators have set an ambitious time frame, aiming for conclusion of negotiations in this round and ratification by the middle of 2006. Interviews with U.S. policymakers and analysts, and with a broad range of Andean policymakers and representatives of farmer, worker, and industry organizations reveal serious concerns about the pace of the negotiations, the lack of communication and engagement between the administration and society in the Andean nations, and ultimately the effects of the agreement on livelihoods in the three South American countries.
A free trade agreement between the United States and the Andean countries has the potential not only to increase trade and promote economic growth, but also to develop stability and democracy in the Andes. However, if the negotiations are treated as a zero-sum competition, in which each side attempts to maximize the concessions received from the other while ignoring their larger implications, the agreement has the potential to undermine those very goals: it may worsen already severe unemployment and inequality in the Andes, fuel the drug trade, and aggravate political and civil conflict. This risk is increased by the rushed pace of negotiations. If the U.S. and the Andean countries establish a free trade agreement, it must support, rather than undercut, the larger goals of cooperation and economic development within the hemisphere. For this to occur, the following steps should be taken:
To read the full text, click here.
Los Estados Unidos y los países Andinos de Ecuador, Colombia y Perú se están reuniendo esta semana en Washington para continuar negociaciones para un Tratado de Libre Comercio. Cuestiones de suma importancia quedan todavía por ser resueltas, particularmente en las áreas de agricultura, propiedad intelectual, estándares de la ley laboral, y requerimientos ambientales. Sin embargo, los negociadores han determinado un tiempo límite ambicioso para concluir las negociaciones luego de esta ronda y ratificar el TLC para mediados del 2006. Entrevistas con analistas políticos y negociadores Norteamericanos y Andinos así como representantes de organizaciones de agricultores, industrias y uniones de trabajadores revelan serias preocupaciones acerca del ritmo apresurado de las negociaciones, la falta de comunicación y compromiso entre la administración y la sociedad en las naciones Andinas y en última instancia los efectos del acuerdo en el sustento de las personas en estos tres países Sudamericanos.
Un tratado de libre comercio entre los Estados Unidos y los países Andinos tiene el potencial no sólo de incrementar el comercio y promover crecimiento económico, pero también de desarrollar estabilidad y democracia en los Andes. Sin embargo, si el proceso de negociación es tratado como un sistema de competencia en el cual la pérdida de uno es la ganancia del otro y en la cual cada lado intenta maximizar las concesiones recibidas mientras se ignora las largas implicaciones, el acuerdo tiene el potencial de socavar dichos potenciales. Así, se empeorará las severas situaciones actuales de desempleo e inequidad en los Andes, se estimulará el tráfico de drogas y se agravará los conflictos políticos y civiles. Estos riesgos incrementan con el paso apresurado en que se están realizando las negociaciones. Si los EE.UU. y los países Andinos establecen un tratado de libre comercio, éste debe apoyar, en vez de abatir las grandes metas de cooperación y desarrollo económico dentro del hemisferio. Para que esto ocurra, los siguientes pasos deben tomarse:
Helena Cardenas
Katherine Vyborny
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.
Rym Momtaz
Radical-right parties are expected to do well in upcoming elections in four of the EU's biggest member states. If successful, they could prevent the union from addressing key challenges ahead.
Stefan Lehne
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has twice inspired praise for standing up to U.S. President Donald Trump: at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos and on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Is Carney showing a third way better than the EU has in dealing with the Trump administration?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
European states control several Overseas Countries and Territories around the world that carry strategic, economic, and environmental weight. As great powers challenge the rules-based order, defending them is a geopolitical imperative for Europe.
Marc Pierini
In supporting Europe’s far-right, MAGA and Russia both want the same thing: a weaker EU. Europe must defend itself without abandoning the openness these forces exploit.
Armida van Rij