Central Amer Free Trade, HURTS COLOMBIA?

juanalejo says on Aug 2, 2005, 14:18:

Not for the time being Most of Colombian exports are benefitted by ATPDEA at the moment and with the probability of Colombia following suit with the TLC with the USA, exports should not suffer in that market.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Aug 2, 2005, 15:16:

GIB You seem to follow news not very closely, but just for your information Colombia is not sitting around waiting or not to negotiate. There is a timetable set for the negotiations and it has been fulfilled, all the dates that have been set have been acomplished and even the next negotiation this month will be attended by all the interested parties including the US agricultural team which had originally conveniently excused themselves as August was holiday season. But thanks to Mr. Uribe and his call to Mr. Bush all subjects including the sensitive ones like agricultural should finalize their last meeting with full agreements by October. Then comes the most difficult part, convincing the Colombian congress which I would tend to think Mr Uribe can persuade and the US congress which in the Senate Mr. Bush can easily persuade but in the House of Representatives things can get fishy, especially taking into consideration the CAFTA was approved by just two votes. We shall wait and see, as the non approval would be a major blow for both sides, as the Colombians want a permanent stand on exports and not the traditional rollercoaster our agreements have to cope when elections are near in the US, second as we begin negotiations with the EU in January, third as the Mercosur agreements are in full swing and fourth as the US sees the Andean Pact Freetrade agreement as the door to the famous American backed ALCA or Acuerdo de Libre Comercio de las Americas.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Aug 2, 2005, 15:25:

It will be interesting to see how the U.S. Congress (and its lobbyists), who seemed to fear so much the effects of a free trade agreement with small Central American nations, will react to an equivalent agreement with somewhat bigger countries (though they are still dwarfed by the U.S. itself in several orders of magnitude, hence why the deal's fate rests much more on that nation's shoulders, at least proportionally). Doesn't seem like it'll be easier to pull off next time.

I guess something tells me that either the U.S. will not really reciprocate (hence the "free" part of the agreement becomes more moot than it already is, and it may not be approved in our regional legislatures), or perhaps it will just strike down the deal when in comes before the U.S. Congress.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

BAQ says on Aug 2, 2005, 16:03:

Hope door swings both ways If Colombia and the U.S sign a deal, I hope the door swings both ways. Would be nice to be able to purchase cars, trucks, motorcycles ect without the EXPENSIVE inport tax imposed by DIAN. If this deal means lower prices for BOTH countries, I hope they are able to work something out. PROTECTIONISM is live and well in both America and Colombia and the only people who get screwed are you and me!!!

Semper Fidelis !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Aug 3, 2005, 04:25:

GIB If you were not so concentrated on trying to here what you want to here, that is the US is a hero and Colombia is evil, you would realize that the commentary made by the ambassador was in referral to the ATPDEA which benefits to Colombian exports expire at the end of the year, and that the US will probably will not renovate if the deal is not signed according to him. That in ocassion of the visit of several Republican members of the House of Representatives to Colombia. He was actually urging the our congress that once the negotiations have finished, which they have not done yet, they would quickly approve the trade agreement. So please if you are really not well informed about how the trade agreement is progressing do inform yourself before stating such opinions. And just for one instant realize that the trade agreement although very important for Colombia is of prime interest for the US in these day and age of free trade agreements, Mr Bush wants under his record to be the one to secure the 500 million Latinamerican consumers. And by the way the only reason the CAFTA finalized before the Andean TLC is because it started before and as both deals have strictly followed a prearranged cronogram, they finished first.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Aug 3, 2005, 10:50:

BAQ is correct "PROTECTIONISM is live and well in both America and Colombia and the only people who get screwed are you and me!!!"

What I can tell you is who is NOT going to get hurt by CAFTA or a TLC and that is a few Colombian businessmen, Big american banks, the American consumer, pharmaceuticals, and big American agriculture and textiles. The majority of the citizens of these countries will not see the benefits and definately not good working conditions we see in the U.S. NAFTA can be used as an example, while the Mexican economy expanded it did not do so at a rate that made it more significant than the rest of the latin american countries (Except Ecuador and Bolivia). It can be argued that mexico would have had the same success without NAFTA, except that business owners and investors would have made a little less profit (those poor millionaires). It did not AT ALL decrease illegal immigration and on average the mexican takes less money home. The mexicans can thank the Walmart-ization of mexico.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.