Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.
Angie Omar
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.
Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.
Angie Omar
Ensuring that cities’ perspectives shape international discussions at this year’s forums is not just equitable; it is likely to produce better outcomes.
Liliana Gamboa, Marissa Jordan
Anger over online restrictions has led to a surge in support for the New People party, which has replaced the Communists as Russia’s second most popular political party.
Andrey Pertsev
As the monarchy appears to question its grandest projects, the state could do with more critical debate than rote cheerleading.
Andrew Leber
After spending much of 2025 trying to placate Donald Trump, some European leaders are starting to change posture. But is even a hostile Washington still so important to Europe that the U.S. president’s outbursts are worth putting up with?
Rym Momtaz, ed.