More Latin, less America - Letters - Letter to the Editor

I was delighted to see such significant treatment given by The National Interest to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (Fall 2003). Even so, the article is still problematic.

President Clinton first mooted the idea of a hemispheric trade area at the 1994 Summit of the Americas in Miami. From the U.S. perspective, an FTAA was a logical extension of the first Bush Administration's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, a strategic response to European integration. It was also the only way to get regional leaders to adopt a Summit agenda that addressed fundamentally domestic matters like anti-corruption and education, formerly off limits for outside discussion. Together, Summit provisions on trade and investment, financial cooperation, education, energy, healthcare and the like contributed to a comprehensive development initiative for the region unlike any previously undertaken because it largely focused on mutual responsibilities based on shared values and interests.

Negotiations for the FTAA were formally begun at the Santiago Summit in 1998. The Quebec City Summit that the current President attended reaffirmed the negotiations and clarified the date for their anticipated conclusion. (Two points to note: the free movement of labor has never been part of discussions, and the Bush Administration has not wavered from its view that agricultural subsidies should be addressed at the WTO, not the FTAA.)

As before, the United States remains the driving force behind the trade agenda. True, negotiations lacked momentum before Congress granted the President fast track trade negotiation authority, but since then the United States has concluded an agreement with Chile and launched negotiations with Central America and, soon, the Dominican Republic. Additional negotiations with Colombia and others are under active consideration. FTAA remains the ultimate goal. Talks remain ongoing--they have never been suspended--but Brazil's efforts to reduce the scope of negotiations has called into question the ability to conclude an agreement on the predetermined timeline, even as the hemisphere gathers at the November ministerial in Miami.

The broadest possible agreement, coupled with the rest of the Summit of the Americas agenda, will have the greatest development impact in the region. Agricultural subsidies should be addressed by the United States and its hemispheric neighbors acting in concert with Europe's Common Agricultural Policy. Similarly, steel tariffs should be lifted unilaterally, but Latin America, too, should look to move ahead with its reform process, like Chile, without waiting for a hemispheric trade agreement that may or may not arrive.

In addition, it is difficult to see why the United States should agree to Brazil's proposal to scale back the FTAA. There are plenty of willing trade partners in the hemisphere, and, if they are committed to the latest generation of trade disciplines, we should not hesitate to move ahead with them, while keeping the door open for full and constructive Brazilian participation in the ultimate agreement. FTAA, after all, is not a core-periphery issue. Rather, it is one part, albeit an important one, of a mutually-reinforcing regional development strategy. Anything less does a disservice to the people of Latin America, the Caribbean and the United States.

ERIC FARNSWORTH

Vice President

Council of the Americas

Washington, DC

COPYRIGHT 2003 The National Affairs, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group