Obstacles Facing the Free Trade Agreement with the United States

By Michael Shifter
El Tiempo (Colombia), April 17, 2008

Colombians can be forgiven if they have trouble understanding precisely why their country’s free trade agreement with the United States has been put on hold. Many who follow the issue closely in Washington are equally bewildered.  In this case, the problem may be that rational thought does not offer a satisfactory explanation.

Given the close, enduring relationship between the US and Colombia, one might logically assume that the free trade deal would be approved overwhelmingly and without hesitation. In light of its adversarial relationships with Hugo Chavez and others, it makes perfect sense for the United States to support an ally such as Colombia.  Strategic considerations should take precedence over other factors. And concerns about human rights conditions may be better addressed within the framework of the Plan Colombia aid package than the trade agreement.

The truth is that this reasoning, while sensible, falls on deaf ears in Washington. What really matters – on this and other issues on the U.S.-Latin America agenda such as immigration or Cuba – is domestic politics. The Colombian trade deal has been a casualty of fierce partisan warfare.

Who is the blame for the situation? Perhaps the Republicans, who failed to consult with Democrats when negotiating recent trade agreements, such as the pact with Central America and the Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR). Or maybe the same Democrats, who neglected to vote on the deal long after it had been negotiated.  Or the Bush administration, which took the unprecedented move of using the “fast track” framework to attempt and force a vote. Or the Democrats again, led by speaker Nancy Pelosi, who retaliated by changing the rules to put off a vote.  Every step along the way of this escalation, each side sought partisan advantage. The best interests of Colombia – or even the United States – barely entered the calculus.

In the end, the political environment was just too difficult to allow a vote.  The partisan bitterness had deepened, the power relations had changed markedly with the election of a Democratic Congress in November 2006, the heated presidential race was in high gear, the public mood was increasingly anxious, and the worsening economy was at the forefront of the political agenda. The timing and confluence of factors could not have been less favorable.

The argument that the agreement is necessary to thwart a looming security threat in South America has backfired, if anything.  There is no love for Chavez in the Democratic Party – Pelosi has referred to him as a “thug” – but the trade issue unfortunately operates on an entirely different track.  Further, although the numerous Congressional delegations have given representatives a greater appreciation of Colombia’s progress, they must ultimately return to the United States to face their colleagues and constituents. In the midst of an uncertain economy and polarizing campaign, politics is conspiring against an objective consideration of the agreement.

There is, however, some good news. The U.S. presidential contest will mercifully be over in November, opening a window to calming political bickering and taking a serious look at substantive issues. Partisanship will not disappear – it never does - nor is that the only obstacle to approval (just ask the AFL-CIO).  But electoral pressures are likely to ease.

The Colombian government was slow to recognize and adjust to the shift in Congressional power, but when the right political moment arrives, it needs to be ready to make its case.  Over the next seven months, the Colombian government should not only continue emphasizing the real progress it has made in reducing violence and protecting vulnerable groups like union officials. It should also be forward-looking and set out a plan for achieving realistic goals in further advancing the rule of law.

Few foresaw the path the agreement has taken up to now, and there is no scenario under which the trade agreement is guaranteed approval.  Taken at face value, the statements by Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton leave little room for a resolution with Colombia.  But they are now in the middle of an intense primary now and there will be a new and different environment in Washington when the next administration takes over in January 2009. With any luck, highly charged partisanship will have given way to a more pragmatic agenda and rational debate.