Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

May 28 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
One Down, Two to Go

By The Editors


Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send
Text  

To appreciate just how long America’s bilateral free-trade agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia have been waiting for congressional approval, consider this: The Korea and Panama deals were signed during “National Homeownership Month” (June 2007), several weeks before the global credit crunch began and just a few days after President Bush’s immigration-reform bill died in the Senate. The Colombia accord, meanwhile, was inked the same month (November 2006) that voters granted Democrats control of Congress, at a time when Denny Hastert was still speaker of the House.

Advertisement

Barack Obama campaigned for the White House as an opponent of all three agreements, yet he has adopted a more pragmatic attitude since taking office. Last week, American and Korean negotiators settled on final changes to their FTA, which now heads to Capitol Hill. Texas Republican Kevin Brady, incoming chairman of the House trade panel, has expressed hope that lawmakers will green-light the Korea, Panama, and Colombia pacts within the first half of 2011. The United Autoworkers have lent their blessing to the revised Korea deal, but Big Labor continues to lobby hard against Panama and Colombia.

Critics of the Panama FTA have voiced anxiety about the country’s status as a tax haven and about the relative opacity of its banking system. The Panamanian government took a major step toward assuaging these concerns on November 30 when it signed a formal “tax-information exchange agreement” with the United States. Led by Pres. Ricardo Martinelli — a conservative, staunchly pro-American businessman — Panama is currently expanding its famous waterway, which handles roughly 15 percent of all U.S. trade. As Heritage Foundation scholar James Roberts observes, passing the FTA would greatly benefit those U.S. firms that are bidding for construction contracts related to the seven-year, $5.2 billion canal project. It would also demonstrate Washington’s strategic commitment to Central America, a region tormented by violent crime and the Chávez-like depredations of Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega, who recently sent troops to occupy a portion of Costa Rican territory during a border dispute.

The Colombia FTA remains much more controversial than its Panamanian counterpart, though not for economic reasons. According to a 2010 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, approximately 90 percent of Colombian exports to the United States already enjoy duty-free access, while the duties imposed on U.S. exports to Colombia can reach 20 percent. The FTA would greatly boost market access for U.S. companies and (as the CRS study noted) have a positive impact on the U.S. economy.

1   2   Next >
Text  

You Might Also Like...

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST

Lowry: Unleash Biden!

Charen: Obama’s Education Hypocrisy -- Again



COMMENTS   4

EXPAND  

   12/09/10 14:51

Why is it again that we can't make good deals with our allies again? Columbia of all countries in the world should be first in line for a standing ovation for the US senate not some Mexican president. What really can drive lefties to believe such crazy things about our allies and friends. If the Democrats would be as half as firm and uncompromising with our enemies as they are with out friends we would be respected in the world again. As it is we are only tough of allies and coddle evil regimes...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/09/10 14:51

Why is it again that we can't make good deals with our allies again? Columbia of all countries in the world should be first in line for a standing ovation for the US senate not some Mexican president. What really can drive lefties to believe such crazy things about our allies and friends. If the Democrats would be as half as firm and uncompromising with our enemies as they are with out friends we would be respected in the world again. As it is we are only tough of allies and coddle evil regimes...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/09/10 18:20

What about a similar free trade agreement with Ecuador -- one that was also scuttled and that literally cost the USA an ally, including a strategic military and anti-narcotics base?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jacob Richard
   12/12/10 13:13

I agree. Our current practice of giving the cold shoulder to stable democratic countries who have been or want to be our allies.
Their reasoning I guess is that because we're doing so well economically it is wise to snub Israel, Britain, South Korea, Columbia, Panama and any other current or future economic powerhouse which attempts to initiate or cement economic ties.
Just don't offend Iran, Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China! (And pretend North Korea, Venezuela and all the other countries who hate us don't exist and will never have the power to hurt us while contradictorily proclaiming that China will overtake us in every way no later than 2050!)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact