Updated approved FTA Deal with the U.S.

andresote says on Feb 28, 2007, 22:03:

Free (arms) trade... The real beneficiaries of the free trade agreement are the Pentagon - they gotta sell all those army surplus weapons somehow!

This link shows some more benefits of the free trade plan for Colombians -

http://www.witnessforpeace.org/pdf/Colombia%20FTA%20flier%20FINAL.pdf

and this one shows where the US's heart is really at -

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/MilitaryAidLA110405.html
'Colombia tops the list for IMET (international Military Education & Training), with $9.3 million in military training aid since 2000, an increase of almost 90% over six years. But other countries have received larger percentage increases over the same period. IMET funding to El Salvador and Nicaragua increased more than 200%, and their neighbor Panama received a 400% increase between 2000 and 2006.
At the same time that military aid and training are on the rise, U.S. economic aid to the region is dropping-- the 2006 foreign aid request foresees a sharp drop especially in development assistance, child survival and health programs. In 2002, in the United States budgeted $225 million for U.S. Agency for International Development programs in Latin America, including funds for child survival and health programs, disaster and agricultural assistance. The request for 2006 totals $125 million for the region- a decrease of more than 40%.'

Another interesting site with some good information about US involvement in colombia -

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=1131


... todo en la vida se paga

el mundo da vueltas y lo que haces puede recaer en ti mas tarde... todo en la vida se paga

Tinto (Moderator) says on Mar 1, 2007, 07:46:

Cali373, Rice production is highly subsidized in the U.S., as is cotton, sugar and depending on the year, corn and soybeans. But meat production is not subsidized. You are confusing a couple of million dollars in "trade promotion" dollars for the meat industry with the multi-billion dollars that go to subsidize crop production. Two different things and not even remotely on the same scale.



Every country in the world that has a foreign embassy and an export promotion agency is "subsidizing" (to use your definition) large and small industrial and agricultural exporters every time they hold a trade fair, print up a brochure, send a trade delegation somewhere, or provide financial advice and technical assistance to exporters. The U.S. plays this game and, by the way, so does Colombia. Look up "Pro Export Colombia" -- they offer assistance to their exporters and have a couple of trade promotion offices around the world.

cali373 says on Mar 1, 2007, 08:20:

Well the point was not deny that countries have trade promotions and Thank you for clearing up my confusion. Colombia (like usual) acted on the best interest of a foreign nation, (to protect foreign investors to be exact), instead of using its leverage for the best interest of Colombians. ANY subsidizing of any industry is a direct violation of the free market model we suppossively promote. Subsidies is a fancy word for price controls. And price controls we so often critisize as part of a centralized ecnomomic system. We sell the market system model to the taxpayer and then rip them off, they do not even know they are getting ripped off.

I am not saying that Colombia does not benefit from a trade deal with the U.S. but it did not use its advantage to get a better deal for Colombia. I really don't think that the U.S. would have just ended the current trade pact with Colombia because (if given enough media attention) it would have been political suicide to reduce trading and cause a possible recession, with a country like Colombia. Why because it would be equivalent to being soft on drugs, if given enough media attention. Just like not approving plan Colombia is considered being soft on drugs even though it has been proven to be a waste of taxpayers money.

Smile if you are a thinker!

juancegomez says on Mar 1, 2007, 09:09:

Don't really see what the Pentagon has to do with this So I don't see andresote's point in this context.

But other than that...yes, the free trade agreement is rather imperfect and I agree with cali373: Colombia could and should have pushed for more, and defended its own best interests much more efficiently.

Still, this isn't over yet, the FTA isn't even approved in any of the two Congresses, so we'll see how things turn out.

Even though I'm not a fan of "subsidizing" per se, it may be a necessary evil in some sectors, whether here or in the U.S. or elsewhere. Free trade, truly free trade, is the idealistic goal but not the day to day reality.

Irrespective of that, the agreement could be improved even if those subsidies mentioned are still in place.

cali373 says on Mar 6, 2007, 13:12:

Republicans seek support of Democrats to pass trade deals http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/business/trade.php

Republicans seek support of Democrats to pass trade deals
By Steven R. Weisman

Tuesday, March 6, 2007
WASHINGTON: When the Democrats swept to victory last autumn, after a campaign fueled partly by attacks on President George W. Bush's trade policies, trade deals promoted by the administration seemed doomed in the new Congress. But that was then.

In the last week, the administration and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill have signaled a new willingness to work with Democrats to try to secure their support for three pending trade deals — with Panama, Peru and Colombia. The focus of their talks has been guarantees for the rights of workers in countries with which the United States has negotiated trade accords, including a ban on child labor.

"There's no question that there's been a change on the Republican side," Representative Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said Monday. "They refused to talk about these things before, and now they're talking."

But it is still not clear how Democrats will respond. Rangel said that Democrats remained highly skeptical about signs of Republican flexibility on trade and that he had not seen anything "acceptable to a broad number of members" on his side.

"The question will be whether, at the end of the day, things really have changed," he added. "So far the answer would be no."

Rangel's Republican counterpart on the Ways and Means panel, Representative Jim McCrery of Louisiana, was more hopeful.

"We've made a lot of progress, but we certainly have not concluded our efforts," he said Monday. "I'm very encouraged by what's happened so far."

The talks over labor standards were set to accelerate this week, with Susan Schwab, the U.S. trade representative, on one side, and Rangel and McCrery on the other. Another crucial negotiator is Representative Sander Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who is chairman of the Ways and Means trade subcommittee.

The negotiators are trying to complete a broad agreement leading to passage of the Panama, Peru and Colombia deals before the end of this month.

They are striving for language that would guarantee the right to organize, and ban child labor and forced labor for American trading partners. Such rights were incorporated into trade deals negotiated by former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and upward of 90 Democrats in the House voted to approve them.

But for the last six years, the Bush administration and the Republican congressional leadership refused to include any such guarantees in trade deals, and few Democrats voted for them. An accord lowering tariff barriers between the United States and Caribbean countries passed by only two votes in the Republican-led House in 2005.

Administration officials say they recognize that without flexibility on labor, trade deals are dead. But if language on labor rights is negotiated that is acceptable to Democrats and the administration, it could become a "template" for future deals, including a possible global trade accord that is still being negotiated.

There would even be a chance, administration officials say, for incorporating such language into approval of Bush's request to renew his authority to negotiate trade deals and get an expedited vote for them. That authority expires June 30, and Democrats say they would not now support extending it.

An administration official, asking not to be identified while discussing the talks, also insisted that some progress had been made.

"They're not there yet, but both sides are trying to look at the options available to make it happen," he said.

But Democrats assert that there has not been as much progress as Republicans are saying and that they do not want to be stampeded.

Both sides say that there is a fundamental impasse over insistence by Democrats that the trade deals be amended to incorporate a requirement that a trading partner country adhere to International Labor Organization standards, including the right to organize, and the ban on slave labor, forced labor and employment discrimination.

The administration responded first by offering language requiring a country to adhere to its own labor laws, a concession rejected by Democrats. The administration now is offering to require that countries adhere to the "equivalent" of American laws.

Levin, the chairman of the trade subcommittee, said Monday that the equivalency requirement would open a huge loophole. "They continue to resist addressing the basic issue," he said of the administration.

But the administration, backed by industry groups, charges that organized labor is working with Democrats to adopt standards that are really aimed at loosening American restrictions on labor at home. A generous labor amendment could lead to challenges against U.S. laws that bar strikes by American government employees, they say.

"They don't want this to be a boomerang that rewrites U.S. labor laws," the administration official said.

Another issue is whether any guarantees on labor rights would be incorporated in the body of the three pending trade agreements, requiring them to be renegotiated, or adopted as a side letter as Republicans want. Democrats say that only embodying them in the negotiated accords would make them enforceable.

Meanwhile, Democrats caution that even if a breakthrough occurs on labor issues, the Colombia, Panama and Peru deals must also be amended in other ways, particularly by adding a requirement respecting environmental regulations in the trading partner countries.

Other concerns of the Democrats and of organized labor include clauses in the trade deals that critics say would permit lawsuits in the United States that could undermine American laws, like those requiring prevailing wages for contracts on which foreign countries might bid.

"If the Democrats fix the labor piece, they have to start talking about the other things that are also extremely important to us," said Thea Lee, chief international economist for the AFL-CIO.

That organization, which has long charged that labor deals have led to a loss of American jobs, is scheduled to reiterate its criticism of the administration's approach on trade at a convention Tuesday, and to warn Democrats not to take its support for granted, especially with a presidential election heating up.

Smile if you are a thinker!

cali373 says on Mar 23, 2007, 13:34:

I wonder if the agreement would include anything about preventing Colombians being defrauded like this. I doubt it.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2004-05-13-pfizer_x.htm

Pfizer settles fraud case for $430 million
By Greg Farrell, USA TODAY
NEW YORK — Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer (PFE) agreed to pay $430 million and plead guilty to charges that its epilepsy drug, Neurontin, was marketed for uses unapproved by the federal government.
The penalties include a $240 million criminal fine, the second-largest criminal fine in a health-care fraud prosecution, the Justice Department said Thursday.

The Pfizer settlement comes amid a wave of government probes into the marketing practices of big pharmaceutical companies. Since 2000, the Justice Department has extracted more than $2 billion in total settlements from AstraZeneca, TAP Pharmaceuticals, Bayer and Abbott Laboratories.

Pfizer said the improper activity occurred at Warner-Lambert's Parke-Davis division between 1996 and 2000. Pfizer bought Warner-Lambert in 2000.

Pfizer, whose 2003 revenue was $45.1 billion, took a $427 million pre-tax charge against earnings last year to pay for the settlement. Its stock closed at $35.40 Thursday, down 31 cents.

Warner-Lambert received the Food and Drug Administration's approval in 1993 to market Neurontin as a supplemental anti-seizure drug for epilepsy patients. It is illegal for a company to market or promote a drug to treat ailments other than those approved by the FDA, but doctors may prescribe drugs for so-called "off-label" uses.

According to the Justice Department, Warner-Lambert "aggressively marketed" Neurontin to treat bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder, Lou Gehrig's disease, drug and alcohol withdrawal seizures, migraine headaches and restless leg syndrome. A scientific study showed a placebo worked as well as or better than the drug for treating bipolar disorder, Justice said.

Warner-Lambert's marketing tactics included paying doctors to attend "consultants meetings" — sometimes in lavish surroundings in Florida, in Hawaii and at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics — where the doctors heard presentations about off-label uses of Neurontin. Warner-Lambert also used "medical liaisons" who represented themselves as experts on a particular disease to promote off-label uses of Neurontin.

One was David Franklin, who filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against the company in 1996 that led to the settlement and a $26.6 million reward for him. (Related story: $26.6M won't change me, whistle-blower says)

According to a court filing by the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts, a Warner-Lambert executive's voice mail to the "medical liaison" staff said: "When we get out there, we want to kick some ass, we want to sell Neurontin on pain. All right?"

Health attorney Craig Holden says the settlement will lead the drug industry to be "far more circumspect with marketing for off-label uses."

Smile if you are a thinker!

Mr. Hollywood says on Mar 23, 2007, 20:48:

I'd say That protectionism hurts a country like Colombia worse than a country like the USA. It's a pretty simple dynamic, the US can do without Colombia as a trade partner but can Colombia do without the US?

I wish both countries would get rid of their ridiculous agricultural subsidies. Let the old, inefficient businesses die and new ways take their places. It's idiotic that ethanol is being made in the US from corn when, just for example, Colombian sugar cane would do a much better job. But that $.51 a gallon federal subsidy keeps the ethanol mills going across the US heartland and locks out a lot of more efficient foreign sources. Meanwhile, I'm sure there are tons of Colombian examples of this kind of bureaucratic genius.

I think Ramirez should have held out for free trade for unrefined coca leaves to the US.

cali373 says on Mar 26, 2007, 10:17:

One thing that we have to remember is that the U.S. became a superpower under protectionalism, however increase trade (with no subsidies) does allow for more efficiency on a multinational basis. Does that mean that all countries will gain from free trade, no but they will be more efficient. The level of Colombian subsidies does not even compare to the US, EU, or Japan. I did not even know Colombia had subsidies on agriculture, I have never heard of that. I have heard that there was a subsidy on gasoline but Uribe lowered it and plans to phase it out.

Smile if you are a thinker!

cali373 says on Mar 26, 2007, 10:19:

Meaning of "Fraud" fraud (frôd) KEY

NOUN:

A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
A piece of trickery; a trick.

One that defrauds; a cheat.
One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

Smile if you are a thinker!

aztec says on Apr 25, 2007, 07:58:

Playing With Fire On Trade "Are Democrats in cahoots with Latin America's dictators and drug lords? Because that's who wins by shutting Panama, Colombia and Peru out of U.S. free trade."

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=262307451163632

aztec says on May 11, 2007, 04:37:

North American Unions rule via the Democratic party. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration and Congress reached a deal on Thursday that paves the way for U.S. approval of free-trade pacts with Peru and Panama but leaves agreements with South Korea and Colombia in doubt.

The Colombia pact faces an additional obstacle because of that country's long history of violence against union workers and other concerns, Levin said.

Includes a binding commitment for the United States and its four free-trade partners to abide by five core International Labor Organization standards, such as the right to organize and bargain collectively.

JMCana says on May 11, 2007, 08:00:

Drug companies have been pulling that stuff and much more for years. Note that the stock did not drop that much. Because with the power the drug companies have, they are pretty much guaranteed a profit. IMO, the only one paying the fine is the consumer.

So I hope that Colombian puts in all kinds of controls on drugs to help their citizens and ENFORCES those rules and laws.

juancegomez says on May 11, 2007, 16:12:

JMCana I definitely agree with you about that particular point. That's what we'd like to see happen, if the government ever gets the necessary equipment to stand up to those companies.