Colombia Free Trade deal toast?

If I am reading this correctly, the Trade Agreement with Colombia may not be passed?
Woody

Junio 29 de 2007 -
Congresistas demócratas de E.U. descartaron discutir Tratado de Libre Comercio con Colombia

En un mensaje firmado por la presidenta de la Cámara, Nancy Pelosi, dicen que esperan resultados en violencia contra sindicalistas y 'parapolítica'.

El Congreso estadounidense abordará en julio la ratificación de los TLC con Perú y Panamá, bajo condición de que ambos países aprueben cambios legislativos. El acuerdo con Colombia no está en la agenda, informaron los dirigentes demócratas.

Los demócratas de la Cámara de Representantes emitieron una declaración conjunta firmada por la presidenta Nancy Pelosi, el líder de la minoría Steny Hoyer, así como Charles Rangel, presidente del Comité de Medios y Arbitrios, y Sander Levin, que dirige el Subcomité de Comercio.

En dicho texto, los dirigentes de la mayoría separaron definitivamente la suerte de los tratados con Perú y Panamá, de la de Colombia, un país severamente criticado por los demócratas en los últimos meses a raíz del asesinato de sindicalistas y el 'escándalo de la parapolítica'.

Con Colombia, el tono ha sido diferente. A pesar de presentar al país como "un aliado crucial" de Estados Unidos en la región, descartaron aprobar el TLC, pese a la firma la víspera de enmiendas laborales y ambientales por parte del país andino para cumplir las exigencias que primero habían planteado los demócratas.

"Hay una amplia preocupación en el Congreso por los niveles de violencia en Colombia, la impunidad, la falta de investigación y procesamiento, así como el papel de los paramilitares", afirmaron. "Asuntos de esta naturaleza, no pueden ser resueltos solamente mediante el lenguaje en un acuerdo comercial", dijeron.

"Creemos que primero tiene que haber pruebas concretas de resultados sostenibles en el terreno y los congresistas seguirán trabajando con todas las partes interesadas para lograr que se consiga esto, antes de analizar cualquier TLC", subrayaron. "Por tanto, no podemos apoyar ahora el TLC con Colombia", sentenciaron.

El presidente colombiano, Alvaro Uribe, viajó en dos oportunidades en los últimos meses a Washington para convencer al Congreso de aprobar el TLC, sin lograr cambiar la opinión de los demócratas.

Perú y Panamá, en julio

Los demócratas dejaron entender que iban a someter la ratificación de los acuerdos de Perú y Panamá a la Cámara de Representantes en julio, aunque sin mencionarlo explícitamente y sin dar garantías de que sean aprobados tanto por la Cámara como por el Senado, cuyos dirigentes no firmaron el acuerdo.

"Nuestra expectativa es que, en las próximas semanas, tanto el Congreso peruano como el estadounidense hagan lo necesario para garantizar que el acuerdo sea implementado totalmente", se limitaron a decir los cuatro dirigentes, con cierta confusión, al mencionar a veces a Panamá.

Los demócratas, no obstante, dejaron entrever una probable ratificación, al adelantar una visita bipartidista a ambos países en agosto para exigir los cambios legislativos necesarios para que los tratados entren en operación.

WASHINGTON (AFP).

By wcarmack on Jul 1, 2007, 05:15 in Friendly Talkzone.

juancegomez says on Jul 1, 2007, 12:21:

That appears to be the case, but perhaps its discussion could simply be indefinitely delayed until the Democrats feel there is enough "progress" to warrant it. I'm not aware of the legal details, however.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Jul 1, 2007, 18:34:

From Susan C. Schwab, U.S. Trade Representative, aka the horse's mouth:

=========================

Schwab statement on amendments to U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement

06/28/2007

“Today, United States and Colombia reached agreement on amendments to the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. Like the amendments to the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, these amendments reflect the bipartisan trade agreement between the Administration and Congressional leadership that was reached on May 10, 2007, and will be legally binding and enforceable.

“The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement will contribute to our countries’ longstanding collaborative efforts to promote economic opportunity and development, peace, human rights, the rule of law, and security in this important region. These opportunities will translate into more jobs for U.S. workers and greater choices for U.S. consumers. For Colombia, this agreement will provide permanent access to the U.S. market, which will aid in sustaining real growth, creating more jobs, and attracting new investment.

“We eagerly anticipate the the signing the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement today and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement on June 30, and look forward to working with Congress on the passage of all four of these important trade agreements.�?

===================

From what I've read, Congress may vote on the Colombian agreement in the Fall or sometime in early 2008. As mentioned elsewhere, the 2nd extension of the Andean Trade Promotion Act expires at the end of February 2008 so that's the next deadline to watch.

miamimike says on Jul 1, 2007, 22:57:

I read where once Human Rights issues were addressed related to the Deaths of many Union Memebers were accounted for, the Act will be renewed. Many here have doubts Colombia is doing enough to investigate their Killings as well as the Industries like Chiquita, Drummond and Coca Cola,,,

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? ... That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,

miamimike says on Jul 2, 2007, 12:49:

GIB--it won't benefit those who have been killed only for union organizing. These are Folks struggling to make a living and needs to be addressed(murders)

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? ... That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,

juancegomez says on Jul 2, 2007, 13:37:

miamimike:
"I read where once Human Rights issues were addressed related to the Deaths of many Union Memebers were accounted for, the Act will be renewed."

I may be wrong, but I think you're mixing up two things here. The trade preferences, which apply to several Andean countries and not just Colombia, have just been renewed, mostly irrespective of those concerns.

The Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Colombia, on the other hand, is another matter. This has been endlessly debated in this forum, but it's always curious how the accumulated deaths of thousands of union leaders, in a country where overall impunity rates for all crimes are just as high if not higher but few seem to mind much, become relevant when an FTA is on the table and at a time when those deaths are at a relative historical low (going by the unions' own figures).

Note that I don't have anything against promoting respect for union rights and defending the lives of those union members which have been threatened, putting pressure on Colombia in order to try to improve that situation (that should have been done years ago already), nor am I a fan of the current FTA either. I just can't help but notice the above, however.

"Many here have doubts Colombia is doing enough to investigate their Killings as well as the Industries like Chiquita, Drummond and Coca Cola,,,"

Obviously not enough is being done in terms of those crimes and many others you haven't mentioned, but you have to put a couple of things in context as well: those foreign companies are being/have been brought before U.S. judicial instances already. I don't think that prosecuting those specific companies here is the stumbling block, but rather (among other things) the murders per se.

GIB: It may benefit some economic sectors in Colombia, and it's hard to predict if it will benefit Colombia as a whole in the long run, but at the cost of potentially ruining many others in the process, those that cannot compete with incoming U.S. products. I don't think that those who are protesting against the FTA are merely guilty of "not appreciating" something that will help them.

Not to mention that there are concerns about intellectual property rights, environmental rights, medical patents and other subjects.

I don't think the U.S. should give away everything to Colombia in exchange for nothing, but even you should realize that Colombia IS the little guy compared to the U.S. Our economy isn't anywhere nearly as diverse, vast and flexible, so that Colombia isn't exactly going to get the most benefits out of this agreement is pretty much spelled out.