http://www.elmundo.com/sitio/noticia_detalle.php?idedicion=2010&idcuerpo=4&dscuerpo=Semanales&idseccion=36&dsseccion=Domingo&idnoticia=171311&imagen&vl=1&r=domingo.php
Below I include a rough translation of the text into English:
Bilateral Relations in the Face of a Republican-majority House: Colombia, Falling Out of the US Agenda
The presence of extra-regional actors with interests in Latin America should move to America and its president Barack Obama to redirect their performance and strengthen ties with countries like Colombia.
The U.S. relationship with Latin America now faces new challenges: as a result of "abandonment" of the "empire,” new players like China, Russia and Iran are looking toward the Western Hemisphere. Colombia must indicate whether their relationship is reduced to absolute bilateralism or open new economic blocs.
In his first two years of government in the United States, Barack Obama has identified for his administration the following foreign policy priorities: military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, maintaining stability in Pakistan, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and finally, Iran and its uranium enrichment program and construction of nuclear power plants.
Against this background of its foreign policy, what are the points of interest of the United States versus Latin America? Why does President Obama's upcoming visit to Latin America not include countries like Colombia and Peru? Can Colombia expect concrete and direct support by the U.S. government, not only in terms of political support and the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism, but on crucial issues such as approval of a Free Trade Agreement?
Obama’s recent State of the Union speech may help clarify some elements to explore the prospects for the Obama administration's relationship with Latin America. Three central points are part of this perspective.
The Other Extra-regional Actors
First, the political landscape of the twenty-first century is complex and interdependent. The United States for more than a century has maintained a close relationship with Latin America, but now must contend with the presence of international players that some 12 years ago had no direct presence in the region, as is the case of China, Russia and Iran. The three, and the third most concerning, have alerted the United States to its loss of leadership in the region.
In particular, in the case of Colombia, the relationship that was sustained over the last 12 years, under the administrations of Bill Clinton and George Bush, has been marked by strong cooperation; what seems inexplicable today is the perceived distancing between the countries after these years of intensified interaction.
The logical reaction in Latin America to the absence of more direct policies on the region by the U.S. is opening up to other emerging powers that offer new opportunities in their markets. One of the crucial points about the presence of other actors in the region is the direct activity of Iran, with investments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, and above all, Iran's ambiguous but also growing relationship with Brazil. In addition, a more recent counterweight to U.S. dominance in the region has been China, an emerging power with an increasingly high interest in investing in Latin America and in exploiting the region’s natural resources. This is one reason why the U.S. should be deeply concerned about the decline of its commercial leadership in the region in 2011.
The United States is at a critical time to redirect its actions, some of which are fixed on two fundamental points: first, the regularization of illegal immigrants, and second, more formalized trade relations with countries like Colombia and Panama.
The United States, Colombia and Panama
One concern that remains after Obama’s State of the Union address, and after the recent conference between the vice president of Colombia and the U.S. Secretary of State, is that the United States maintains only a vague commitment to the signing of a Free Trade Agreement with Colombia.
Colombia, from the administration of George Bush forward, was conditioned to comply with two fundamental aspects for the signing of an FTA: the protection of trade unionists and the creation of stable working conditions, and the reduction in the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law.
Colombia, since the administration of Andrés Pastrana through the two terms of President Alvaro Uribe Velez, fought hard to reduce rates of kidnapping, terrorist acts, and violations of human rights, and gradually built up conditions of political and legal stability to fulfill the US Democrats’ conditions imposed as conditions for the trade treaty.
In addition, we can mention four main reasons which could justify approval of a US-Colombia FTA, under the current conditions of the country: a) Colombia has had in the past decade an average of controlled inflation--that is, an average rate between 2005 and 2010 of 5.5% according to estimates by the Bank of the Republic, with the highest point in 2008 with 8% and the lowest point in the most recent year recorded, 2010, at 2%; b) the nation has demonstrated sustained GDP growth, allowing it to become a more promising player within the world economy; c) The country occupies a key geo-strategic position for trade at its three main ports, one on the Pacific, and two on the Caribbean; d) The Andean republic has presented key advances in internal social wellbeing and should be applauded for its substantial improvement in rural security and political stability.
Despite this momentum, Colombia has not been able to convince Democrats and Republicans in their entirety to approve the trade agreement. However, the delay of the ratification of the agreement by the U.S. Congress is illogical in the context of bilateral cooperation. It is likely that 2011 is the year the U.S. will ratify its impending agreement with South Korea, and it is therefore wise for the North American country to simultaneously take a pragmatic approach toward Colombia, a country that has been its strongest ally in Latin America over the past decade.
An Uncertain Future for Latin America
What can we expect from the United States relationship with Latin America, and especially Colombia? Undoubtedly, Colombia's relationship with the United States has been one of cordiality, cooperation and commitment. Despite this, Colombia cannot focus only on a bilateral relationship with the United States. The new challenges for the administration of President Santos are setting out toward multilateral cooperation with other economic blocs in the world, major powers such as India and China, and regional blocs such as Mercosur.
Connectivity in economic and political relations are possible with these blocks, so there remains the question of whether or not Colombia is a critical and essential part of U.S. foreign policy. It certainly should be, but in the manner Obama has presented his case, US intentions remain unclear as to whether it will intensify the degree of cooperation with Colombia.
I hope you enjoy our points of view! I welcome any comments and feedback.
SE
No comments:
Post a Comment