El futuro del Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC), firmado hace más de tres años entre Colombia y Estados Unidos y que el Congreso norteamericano aún no ha sometido a votación, pareció recibir una bocanada de aire fresco en las últimas horas por cuenta de un editorial hoy en el periódico The Washington Posty de una ofensiva lanzada recientemente por el gobierno del presidente Barack Obama para convencer de las bondades del acuerdo a varios demócratas de la Cámara de Representantes, tal como lo ha registrado el diario de asuntos legislativos The Hill.

“No aprobar los tratados de libre comercio con Colombia y Corea del Sur sería una mala noticia para las empresas y los trabajadores estadounidenses”, dice The Washington Post en un editorial titulado ‘Time to Trade’ (‘Tiempo de comerciar’). El artículo empieza por señalar que, a raíz del Discurso del Estado de la Unión pronunciado por Obama ante el Congreso en pleno el pasado 27 de enero, en el que dijo que Estados Unidos buscará fortalecer sus relaciones comerciales con socios claves como Panamá, Colombia y Corea del Sur, “el atasco político sobre el tema del comercio parece estar a punto de acabarse”.

El Post advierte que desde el discurso de Obama, en el que prometió duplicar las exportaciones en cinco se fijó para combatir el desempleo, ha habido dos hechos que permiten concluir que el Congreso norteamericano someterá este año a votación el TLC. El primero, el miércoles pasado, fue la respuesta del secretario del Tesoro, Timothy Geithner, cuando un representante a la Cámara le preguntó si el gobierno de Obama quiere que los acuerdos comerciales suscritos con Corea del Sur, Panamá y Colombia sean aprobados por el Legislativo en este 2010. La contestación no dejó lugar a dudas: “Absolutely” (“Rotundamente, sí”).

El segundo hecho destacado por el rotativo ocurrió 24 horas después cuando el secretario de Comercio norteamericano Gary Locke manifestó que su país apoyará acuerdos comerciales que sean justos y que “mejoren el acceso a los trabajadores, las empresas y los agricultores de Estados Unidos”. El TLC, según el Post, encaja perfectamente en esta descripción porque “les daría a la inmensa mayoría de los productos estadounidenses el mismo acceso libre del que gozan en territorio estadounidense los productos de esa importante nación de los Andes, que crece rápidamente”. El diario agrega que el TLC constituiría además a fortalecer a Colombia, un “país aliado” en la región.

El editorial de The Washington Post rechaza los argumentos de quienes critican el TLC. “Como no encuentran argumentos económicos, buscan argumentos políticos”, como el peligro que corren en Colombia los sindicalistas, afirma. Pero también rebate esta postura. “En los últimos cuatro años, la muerte de líderes sindicales se ha reducido de 60 a 28 y, según un estudio de Daniel Mejía y María José Uribe, de la Universidad de los Andes en Bogotá, los sindicalistas tienen seis veces menos posibilidades de ser asesinados que el resto de los ciudadanos”, subraya en otro más de los diversos editoriales en los que el Post se ha declarado partidario del TLC.

No sólo Timothy Geithner y Gary Locke se han referido al TLC en la última semana. También lo hizo el Representante Comercial de Estados Unidos (USTR por sus siglas en inglés), Ron Kirk, que el pasado jueves se reunió con congresistas de los llamados Nuevos Demócratas, un sector más favorable al comercio internacional dentro del partido de gobierno. En el encuentro, según relata The Hill, les hizo ver la importancia de que el Legislativo le dé luz verde al acuerdo con Colombia. Así lo contó Adam Smith, representante a la Cámara por el estado de Washington.

¿Servirá todo esto para que la mayoría de los cien 100 senadores y de los 435 representantes a la Cámara de Estados Unidos sometan a votación y aprueben el tratado? No se sabe. Todo depende de Nancy Pelosi, la todopoderosa presidenta demócrata de la Cámara (‘Speaker of The House’ en inglés), que decidió meter al congelador el pacto firmado en Washington el 22 de noviembre de 2006. Según ella, y según varios demócratas, el Congreso no debe considerar el TLC mientras el gobierno del presidente Álvaro Uribe no demuestre más avances en la lucha contra la violencia en contra los líderes sindicales y contra la impunidad frente a los asesinatos de sindicalistas.

Pero las cosas han dado un giro porque, si hasta hace poco los trabajadores norteamericanos veían como una amenaza la entrada al país de productos provenientes de naciones con mano de obra barata, como es el caso de Colombia, hoy han empezado a pensar que un TLC les permitirá exportar más bienes fabricados en Estados Unidos, lo cual podría servir para crear empleo. Y eso, en un país donde el 9,7% de las personas no tienen trabajo, es un dato muy serio a tomar en cuenta.

**Time to trade

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020702164.html

IN RECENT DAYS, it has sometimes looked as if the political logjam over trade might finally be about to break. In a State of the Union address centered on job creation, President Obama declared a National Export Initiative to double U.S. exports in five years. In support of this goal, he spoke encouragingly about "strengthening" trade relations with South Korea, Panama and Colombia -- each of which has a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the United States pending congressional approval. Could it be that the president was finally ready to take on labor unions and other Democratic interest groups that have been blocking them? The situation appeared even more hopeful on Wednesday: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner responded "absolutely" when a member of Congress asked whether the administration wanted to get them through by year's end.

Or so it seemed. Actually, the secretary had been misinterpreted because of some cross talk at the hearing, as his department quickly explained in a news release afterward. The Obama administration's position remains what it was: It wants to adjust the deals, in cooperation with Capitol Hill, and "move forward" with them, but there's no deadline. And so, despite the promising talk, the future of the FTAs remains uncertain. Panama's might still come to a vote this year, which would be good, but it is the smallest and least controversial of the three. A failure to pass the Colombia and Korea agreements would be bad news for American companies and American workers.

The administration's export initiative offers more coordinated government support to firms trying to sell overseas. But when it comes to creating export-related jobs in bunches, the crucial thing is to remove tariff barriers wherever possible and as fast as possible. While America dithers, the European Union is pursuing trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and other nations; this threatens to leave the United States at a disadvantage.

No doubt trade is a tough sell in an election year, given the strength of its opponents on the Hill. But on Colombia, the case for a deal is especially strong -- and the case against one especially weak. "This administration will pursue trade agreements that are balanced [and] ambitious and improve market access for U.S. workers, firms, farmers and ranchers," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said Thursday. This is a perfect description of the Colombia FTA: It would simply give the vast majority of U.S. goods the same duty-free access to that large, fast-growing Andean nation that Colombian products already enjoy in the United States. Even as it helps U.S. companies, the agreement would shore up a strong U.S. ally in a troubled region.

Since there is no economic argument against free trade with Colombia, opponents have had to come up with a political one -- namely, that the FTA would reward a government with a poor human rights record. In truth, Colombia has made vast progress since the bloody days of its past. Over the past four years, murders of trade-union members, the top concern of U.S. human rights activists, have declined from 60 per year to 28. Trade-unionists are actually six times less likely than other Colombians to be victims of homicide, according to a new study by Daniel Mejía and María Jose Uribé of the University of the Andes in Bogota.

Are opponents of the FTA clinging to their arguments despite overwhelming contrary evidence? Is free trade with Colombia in the U.S. interest? And has the president indulged protectionists in Congress long enough? To all three questions, the answer is: "Absolutely."

**

Obama starts new push on trade

By Ian Swanson

The Obama administration is reaching out to business-friendly Democrats to win support for free-trade policies that divide the party.

The effort is part of President Barack Obama's push on trade that was launched with his State of the Union address. Obama said he wanted to double exports over the next five years as part of an effort to grow the U.S. economy.

The administration's move was reinforced by a speech this week by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on increasing exports. Locke focused on programs that could help small businesses increase their exports, as well as trade missions led by his department.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk met members of the business- friendly New Democrats Coalition on Thursday to discuss the trade agenda. The Democrats spoke to Kirk about pending trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that have stalled in the Democratic-led Congress, according to Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.).

Moving any of those deals will be difficult because of opposition in Obama’s own party.

Legislation calling for existing trade deals to be re-negotiated has won the support of half the House Democratic caucus. And administration officials from the president on down have been careful when addressing trade matters.

In the State of the Union, Obama spoke of strengthening “trade relations” with “key partners” like South Korea, Panama and Colombia, but did not call on Congress to pass trade pacts already negotiated with the three countries.

He also didn't explicitly speak of the deals, which were all negotiated by the Bush administration. Striking a similar note, experts from Kirk’s speech to the New Democrats posted on USTR’s web site did not mention the three agreements, which are all opposed by organized labor.

In November, Obama said he wanted the South Korea trade deal passed in 2010.

“Trying to boost exports is a fine goal, but until the administration implements President Obama's campaign commitments to reform the trade agreements we now have in place, trade agreements that promote offshoring U.S. investment and jobs and flood us with imports, the possible job gains of export promotion will be swamped by the continuing damage of the failed, old trade deals so many Americans despise,” Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, wrote in a statement this week.

Wallach supports the legislation calling for the re-negotiating of existing trade deals.

Smith said he believes the Panama deal could be approved this year by Congress, but he described the Colombia and South Korean deals as harder sells.

He said trade supporters, including Obama, must emphasize that the trade deals they are pushing include strengthened labor and environmental rules that ensure the U.S. is getting a better deal than in agreements previously negotiated.

Smith added that Obama’s statements in the State of the Union address were helpful, but that the president needs to make those statements more often.

Kirk and the New Democrats also discussed changing rules governing the export of high-tech goods, as well as export programs highlighted in Locke's speech.

A spokeswoman for Kirk said he is working to set up meetings with other groups of Democrats.

Members of the New Democrats sent a letter to Obama on Thursday that said they were “eager” to work with the administration to push forward trade deals that would open markets for U.S. investment.

The letter hailed trade deals as driving more than 50 percent of U.S. exports.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/80103-obama-starts-new-push-on-trade