• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

A Contentious U.S. – Andean Free Trade Agreement: Do It Right, or Not At All

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.

Link Copied
By Helena Cardenas and Katherine Vyborny
Published on Nov 13, 2005

Additional Links

Texto Completo EspanolFull Text in English

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:

  • The pace of negotiations should be slowed to allow thorough negotiation and consensus building in all four countries on contentious issues.  The U.S. Congress should renew the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) to enable this.  Negotiations should not exclude Ecuador in the rush to reach completion.  
  • U.S. and Andean governments should actively engage all sectors of society, particularly the Andean groups most vulnerable to the dislocations of trade liberalization, in order to build consensus and ensure the trade agreement does not undermine the goal of political stability and strengthening of democracy.  
  • U.S. and Andean governments should build a broader base of support for ratification of the agreement by including strong labor and environmental provisions.
  • Andean countries should prepare comprehensive plans for a smooth transition to take advantage of trade opportunities and adjust to the short term challenges of free trade.  The U.S. should assist in this preparation by allowing special treatment for areas which generate significant employment in the Andes, by lengthening phase-outs, and by sufficiently funding targeted capacity building to ensure the Andean countries can utilize their access to U.S. markets, and can develop alternatives to uncompetitive sectors. 

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:

  • El ritmo de las negociaciones debe avanzar más despacio para permitir una negociación minuciosa y crear consenso en los cuatro países sobre los temas contenciosos. El Congreso de los Estados Unidos debe renovar la Ley de Promoción Comercial Andina y Erradicación de la Droga (ATPDEA, por sus siglas en inglés). No se debe excluir a Ecuador en el apremio de concluir las negociaciones.
  • Los gobiernos de EE.UU. y de los países Andinos deben incluir activamente a la sociedad civil con el motivo de construir consenso y asegurar que el tratado de comercio no pase por alto la meta de estabilidad política y reforzamiento de la democracia.
  • Los EE.UU. y gobiernos Andinos deben construir una base de apoyo más amplia para la ratificación del acuerdo a través de la inclusión del suministro de leyes labores y ambientalistas firmes.
  • Los países Andinos deben preparar planes exhaustivos para una transición más viable en el que se adapten a los retos a corto plazo del libre comercio al mismo tiempo que aprovechan las ventajas  que ofrece la oportunidad de un comercio más amplio. Los EE.UU. deben asistir en esta preparación permitiendo en el acuerdo un tratamiento especial  en las áreas de generación de empleo significativas en los socios Sudamericanos.  Esto se puede lograr al extender los períodos de reducción de tarifas, y al destinar los suficientes fondos para capacitación, con el fin de asegurar que los países Andinos puedan beneficiarse del acceso a los mercado Norteamericano, y desarrollar alternativas para los sectores no competitivos.

Presione aquí para leer el texto completo.

About the Authors

Helena Cardenas

Katherine Vyborny

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Authors

Helena Cardenas
Katherine Vyborny
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
North AmericaUnited StatesSouth AmericaPolitical ReformEconomyTrade

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.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Trump Turns NATO into a Tool of Coercion

    The full list of humiliations Europe has endured since Donald Trump returned to the White House makes for grim reading. But Washington’s adversarial approach to its allies undermines its own power base.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • wide shot of the city of Dakar by the water
    Commentary
    Senegal: An Island of Resilience

    During our visit, we observed a democracy that has learned from its difficult past and is working toward an even more dynamic future.

      • Sarah Yerkes

      Sarah Yerkes, Natalie Triche

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane

    The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.

      Michael Young

  • Article
    Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio Politics

    “Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.

      Jennifer B. Murtazashvili

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone Attacks

    The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.