Thread: 24 US Congressmen write against Andean FTA to Robert Portman

24 US Congressmen write against Andean FTA to Robert Portman



The Letter was signed by these congressmen :

Jan Shakowsky, Sherrod Brown, Lane Evans, James P. McGovern, Raúl Grijalva, Peter DeFazio, Michael McNulty , Bill Pascrell, Jr., Mike Michaud , Stephen F. Lynch, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Donald M. Payne, Ted Strickland, William D. Delahunt, Hilda L. Solis, Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Luis Gutiérrez, Maxime Waters, Robert Wexler, James Oberstar, Rush Holt, Tim Ryan, Loretta Sánchez


English Version here

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/PressRe ... etter.html




NOVEMBER 7, 2005

SCHAKOWSKY, COLLEAGUES, SEND LETTER TO AMBASSADOR PORTMAN OVER AFTA CONCERNS


WASHINGTON, DC - Today, U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky was joined by 23 of her Democratic colleagues in sending a letter U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert Portman, expressing concern about the Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA). AFTA would create a free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. The current negotiations leave serious doubts as to whether AFTA would actually promote economic development in the Andean region and benefit working families and the economy in the United States.

Below is the text of the letter to Ambassador Portman:

November 7, 2005

Ambassador Robert Portman
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20508

Dear Ambassador Portman,

We take this opportunity to raise with you some concerns that we have regarding the current negotiations between the U.S. and Colombia, Ecuador and Peru for an Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA). After eleven rounds, the negotiations appear to be at or near an impasse on several issues, including agriculture and intellectual property. Indeed, current demands by the USTR on agriculture may well jeopardize the viability of a stable, prosperous rural sector in the region, leading to the very real possibility of increased coca production and, consequently, transnational crime. Such a result would be at complete odds with current U.S. counter-drug and alternative development policy. Similarly, current intellectual property demands have been criticized as jeopardizing access to affordable medicines to the poorest in the Andean region, which could lead to increased levels of disease and premature death. At the same time, serious concerns with regard to labor law and compliance in the Andean region, including the frequent assassination of trade unionists in Colombia, have not been adequately addressed.

As discussed more fully below, these concerns lead us to question whether the Andean FTA will in fact promote economic development in the Andean region, while at the same time generating new opportunities in the United States, or whether the agreement will bring with it more unemployment, greater insecurity, and crime.

1. Trade in Agriculture

In preparation for agriculture negotiations, the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture released a report entitled Colombian Agriculture and the FTA with the United States in July 2004. The report predicts that if Colombia eliminated its price band system and undertook substantial tariff reductions in sensitive products, as the U.S. continues to request, farmers could experience an overall 57 percent reduction in income and a 35 percent reduction in employment among workers in nine major agricultural sectors.
Indeed, the report sounded a striking warning:

“[If] . . . Colombia [does not take] adequate measures in defense and support of agricultural producers, rural problems could worsen and many of its inhabitants would have no more than three options: migration to the cities or to other countries (especially the United States), working in drug cultivation zones, or affiliating with illegal armed groups. Thus the agreement, if not adequately negotiated, could worsen these three problems that Colombia is trying to remedy and that would be in the interest of the United States to overcome.�

Former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz agrees, explaining in an October 2004 interview, "the United States is spending billions trying to eradicate the cocaine trade and here we are giving them an incentive to grow more coca… If their income from corn and rice and other legitimate crops goes down, they will switch to something else, and the most lucrative alternative is coca."

Similarly, a 2005 report by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) found that Ecuador’s rural sector would be adversely affected, with 21 of 36 products studied reducing their representation in the domestic market. In evaluating Ecuador’s agricultural sector under the terms of a trade agreement with the U.S., the report concluded, “The Ecuadorian agricultural sector loses in any scenario. This includes the improbable case in which the U.S. eliminates subsidies, supports and maintains its tariffs at zero. The net effect is marginally negative, but will impact especially subsistence and medium size producers in rice, corn (white and hard), meat and some dairy products.� In a more likely scenario, where tariffs are eliminated but U.S. subsidies and supports are maintained, the report anticipates that the rural sector will be hit hard in terms of the gross value of its production and much worse in terms of employment.

2. Intellectual Property

The U.S. proposals for the AFTA include several provisions that undermine access to affordable medicines. These include the extension of patent protections from 20 to 25 years to compensate for delays in processing patents, a five-year ban on the use of the originator company’s test data for the approval of generic medicines, and the granting of “second use� patents when a new use is discovered for an existing medicines. The proposed rules would virtually eliminate local pharmaceutical laboratories and result in sharply increased prices. A recent study undertaken by the Pan-American Health Organization in Colombia predicts that the economic impact of these rules in Colombia will exceed $ 4.9 billion. According to Dr. Pier Paolo Balladelli, PAHO - Colombia, the restrictions set forth in the trade agreement could have an enormous impact on health services and would result in the reduction in access of Colombian to quality medicines.

Similar concerns were recently raised by the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Health, Paul Hunt, who warned that the agreement would put medicines out of reach for millions in Peru and urged the United States not to pressure the country into a trade agreement. He explained, “I am concerned because the free trade negotiations between the U.S. and Peru could create a greater protection for patents than those that are currently required under the rules of the WTO. Greater patent protection could restrict governments from taking actions to protect the right to health in the future.� Similarly, the Health Ministry of Peru made public a report on the potential effects of the trade agreement on June 2, 2005. The study indicated that 700,000 to 900,000 people would be excluded from access to medicines under the agreement unless the budget of the Ministry of Health were substantially increased.

3. Labor

In Colombia, workers continue to face several legal and practical obstacles to the exercise of their rights to freely associate, join a trade union and bargain collectively. Limitations on the right to bargain collectively and to strike in the public and private sectors, and laws and practices that permit employers to circumvent unions and bargain directly with employees or with non-union associations, are characteristic of the hardships that exist in Colombia. As a result of these and other labor violations, the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements fell from 409,918 in 1994-95 to 176,774 in 2002, according to the U.S. State Department’s most recent human rights report.

However, it is the alarming level of violence against trade unionists that sets Colombia apart. In the last decade, over 2,000 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia, making it by far the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. To date, the government of Colombia has failed to take necessary measures to prevent crimes against trade unionists, and has failed to investigate and prosecute more than a handful of the total number of cases. It is within this context of near total impunity that 94 trade unionists were murdered in 2004, up from 91 in 2003. Further, death threats have almost doubled in the same time, from 296 to 445, creating a chilling effect on further trade union activity.

Although the ENS 2005 mid-year report reflects a decline in the number of trade unionists assassinated, 29 (which stood at 54 at the same time last year) other violations, such as death threats against trade unionists, continued apace. According to ENS, this reflects a change in tactics by the responsible parties, primarily the paramilitaries, given their need to demonstrate a will to disarm. Thus, the paramilitaries have opted to threaten trade unionists and their families– an act which has the same impact but which provokes less concern from the international community.

In Ecuador, labor rights violations were documented in Human Rights Watch’s 2002 report, entitled Tainted Harvest. The report uncovered serious deficiencies in Ecuador’s labor code and detailed numerous labor rights violations in the banana industry, including the pervasive use of hazardous child labor and the use of various tactics, at times violent, to violate workers’ right to freedom of association. Labor and human rights organizations, including the U.S. Labor Education in the Americas Project, the AFL-CIO and Human Rights Watch, have filed petitions against Ecuador under the ATPDEA to push the U.S. government to investigate these problems and the Ecuadorian government to take steps to resolve them. The U.S. government, however, has yet to rule on any of these petitions, and Ecuador has largely failed to live up to its promises to resolve these problems, including the passage of much needed reforms to improve its weak labor code.

Conclusion

Certainly, no one is opposed to the expansion of economic relations with the Andean region. We must ensure, however, that our trade policies with the Andean region are mutually beneficial and promote growth and employment opportunity for all parties. We believe that the concerns outlined above must be taken into consideration if, in the long run, the AFTA will prove a benefit to us all.



Sincerely,

Jan Schakowsky

Member of Congress



Sherrod Brown
Member of Congress

Lane Evans

Member of Congress


James P. McGovern
Member of Congress

Raul Grijalva

Member of Congress



Peter DeFazio
Member of Congress

Michael McNulty

Member of Congress



Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Member of Congress

Mike Michaud

Member of Congress



Stephen F. Lynch
Member of Congress

Barbara Lee

Member of Congress



Lynn Woolsey
Member of Congress

Donald M. Payne

Member of Congress



Ted Strickland
Member of Congress

William D. Delahunt

Member of Congress



Hilda L. Solis
Member of Congress

Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.

Member of Congress



Luis Gutierrez
Member of Congress

Maxine Waters

Member of Congress



Robert Wexler
Member of Congress

James Oberstar

Member of Congress



Rush Holt
Member of Congress

Tim Ryan

Member of Congress



Loretta Sanchez
Member of Congress






The letter is here in Spanish :

http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=3095


Vicente Duque

I wonder why Foxx, Coble, Myrick or Taylor hasnt signed on to this letter....

Representative Janice Schakowsky, Democrat, Illinois. She wrote the letter to Robert Portman on top. She was the leader and first signature of the letter on Andean Trade Agreement.



Other website asks for adhesion to Jan's Letter :

Campaign for Labor Rights

Grassroots Mobilizing Department of the U.S. Anti-Sweatshop Movement

URGENT ACTION ALERT: Important Letter on Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA)
Calls to House of Representatives Needed TODAY

Call your representative in Congress TODAY to ask him or her to sign on to the letter issued by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky raising serious concerns with the Andean Free Trade Agreement in the areas of labor rights, agriculture, and intellectual property rights.

http://www.campaignforlaborrights.org/a ... letter.htm


Biography of Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat, Illinois :

"Jan remains a member of the House Democratic Leadership, serving as Chief Deputy Whip, as she did in the 2002 election cycle, and on the House Steering Committee, the committee that helps determine Members’ committee assignments. Jan was appointed Chief Deputy Whip of the House of Representatives under Whip Nancy Pelosi, the first woman elected to a leadership position in the House, and who is now serving as the leader of the House Democrats -- the first woman ever elected to that position."

http://www.janschakowsky.org/AboutJan/t ... fault.aspx



Janice Schakowsky's Website :
http://www.janschakowsky.org/


For many years Jan has been constantly fighting for peace in the Andean Countries and against the funding of Private Armies :



U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), author of the Andean Region Contractor Accountability Act (ARCAA), H.R. 1591, today demanded answers once again from Administration officials on the role of federally-funded private soldiers in Latin America. ARCAA would prohibit the federal government from funding private armies in the Andean region.

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/press20 ... 1peru.html




Vicente Duque

I would be extremely grateful if people here help me by analyzing the other congressmen that signed Representative Janice Schakowsky's letter to Robert Portman.

Who are they ??? ... What is their voting record ??? .... Where do they stand on Hemispheric issues ???


I am in a campaign against the Andean FTA ( using many Spanish Language Forums ). And it will be wonderful if I can know who are our Friends inside the US Congress. So that I can broadcast the good news : that we have friends in the Capitol opposed to unreason and brutality.

That is to avert the great human and social tragedy that an Andean FTA would set off.

Thanks for any help.

Vicente Duque

Vicente,

This webpage contains a record of how members of Congress have voted on the FTAs. (There's a link that you need to click in order to open a PDF file.)
http://www.stoptheftaa.org/artman/publi ... _130.shtml

Here's a couple of pages I created that has info about more recent votes including CAFTA.
www.GlobalismScorecard.org/USHouseTradeSortScore.htm
www.GlobalismScorecard.org/USSenateTradeSortScore.htm

Hope the Andean FTA fails. When is it coming up for a vote? Anyway, your struggle is our struggle. Good luck!!!

Lost_mummy :

Thanks for your information and interesting pages to see voting records on FTAs.




An American Friend has suggested that we keep a watch on these people


The Progressive Caucus :

http://www.congressionalprogressivecauc ... &Itemid=27

These are the people you can generally count on to stand in favor of fair, not "free." trade. Jan Schakowsky has been a member from the beginning.



It is possible that the Andean FTA is signed on this month of November, more likely December or the first two months of next year.

One curious thing is that nothing has been decided in the most important issues which are : Agriculture, Patents, Intellectual Property and Drugs.

This is absolutely ridiculous. They have talked for a year and the public knows nothing inside the USA or in the Andean Countries.

This is kind of a secret and we will be presented with accomplished facts at the end of the process, with no possibility of critique or discussion.

I am not an extremist. I think that at least theoretically a FAIR PACT would be a great thing.

But all my instincts, all my knowledge and all the process reveals to me a bad intention of signing a contract that is going to cause a great destruction in North America and the Andean Nations. This is recklessness at his worst.

This is extremely irresponsible. Andean Agriculture will probably be destroyed by American Agriculture.

For the US this FTA will mean a great loss of prestige and lots of trouble in foreign policy for the long term future.

We should not throw gasoline to fires. There is a lot of Agrarian Conflict and Violence as things stand now. Impoverishing the peasantry is the worst idea.

Social Darwinism, Neoliberalism and a bad use of the theories of Josef Schumpeter, Austrian Economist of the first half of the 20 century.

Schumpeter wrote about "Creative Destruction of Capitalism". His theories were for Austria, Germany and Central Europe, and for another time. His ideas were used by Konrad Adenauer and Ludwig Erhard in Germany and probably by the builders of the European Common Market : Jean Monet and so on.

To use Schumpeter's Ideas for a pact between the most developed economy in the world and some backward countries in cuasi civil war is absurd and ill conceived.

Thanks again


Vicente Duque

Congress Members and US Labor against an Andean Free Trade Agreeent
US Newswire




http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=56851

To: National Desk

Contact: Tom Ricker of the Alliance for Responsible Trade/Quixote Center, 301-699-0042; David Edeli of Public Citizen, Global Trade Watch, 202-454-5111



WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Speaking on Cannon Terrace today, members of the U.S. Congress and labor leaders sent a clear message to the Bush administration and the United States Trade Representative as they attempt to wrap up talks for a free trade agreement with Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia: Move away from a failed trade model or face another tough battle in Congress.

Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said, with the Central American Trade Agreement (CAFTA) "our Congress made the wrong choice almost four months ago, and here we are again. AFTA is just as bad as NAFTA, just as bad as CAFTA for working families. These are failed policies that sell out American working families and ship American jobs overseas."

Linda Sanchez (D-CA, also noted, "CAFTA was a bad idea for American working families, and our country cannot afford another trade deal that rewards countries which have poor labor standards. It is time to call on President Bush to stop making deals which favor his cronies and to start protecting the hard working men and women who make up the workforce around the world.

The main concern expressed by members of Congress is the lack of enforceable worker rights protection in the current Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) text. This was the same concern that led to near unanimous opposition from House Democrats in the vote on CAFTA in July.

"President Bush and the USTR have not learned their lesson, and they crank out agreement after agreement using the same bad model designed to enrich the few at the expense of many" said John Murphy, vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Xaiver Becerra (D-CA) noted that AFTA did not have to go down this road: "Peruvian president Alejandro Toledo has said publicly that he would welcome the inclusion of internationally accepted core labor standards into the Andean Free Trade Agreement and I thank him for taking that important step. It is our hope that as we move forward with finalizing negotiations, all participating countries follow President Toledos lead to include the five International Labor Organization core standards within the four corners of the agreement."

But unless the Bush administration changes course AFTA will not be able to garner support.

"This trade deal is simply unacceptable; more trade unionists have been murdered in the past decade in Colombia than in the rest of the world combined, and this is the country we single out for a trade agreement. This is a reward for violence and a climate of terror for working people. The current trade model simply does not work: poverty and income inequality are on the rise especially in countries with whom we have agreements, and there is a rising trade deficit and a decline of wages and employment in the U.S.," concluded Thea Lee, policy director for the AFL-CIO.

Quoted from U. S. Newsire by Vicente Duque


Comment :

The problem is that American Cereals with Subsidies of US $100 per ton and more will immediately destroy Andean Agriculture.

The andean peasants will be evicted from their small farms.

This will bring more Agrarian Conflict ( The Andes is in Turmoil now !! ), more civil war, more violence, more beggary.

This beggary will depress salaries and will bring more EMIGRATION.

BEFORE IMMIGRATION THERE HAS TO BE EMIGRATION

Vicente Duque