TREATIES OF FREE TRADE BETWEEN COLOMBIA AND THE UNITED

STATES
At present, Colombia has 13 commercial agreements in force, which include those of a
bilateral, multilateral or regional bloc nature. Of these, only three countries are not part of
the American continent (European Free Trade Association, European Union and South
Korea), which indicates a certain concentration of their attention in their geographical and
historical-cultural region.
Colombia, which had participated in all the Latin American integration processes (Free Trade
Area of the Americas, Andean Community of Nations, the Group of Three), raised the need
to achieve a bilateral agreement with the United States, assuming that it would bring
enormous and almost immediate favorable results for its economy. However, various groups
- politicians, academics and the population - expressed opposing positions to the project,
considering it as a disadvantageous and asymmetric agreement. The central argument was
that the free competition that was sought to achieve was not such, given that in the United
States non-tariff barriers that distort multilateral free trade persist.
Likewise, the constitution of the free trade agreement represented a serious comparative and
competitive disadvantage for Colombia, with respect to the size and scope of both economies.
This as a consequence, would affect primarily the weaker economy: the Colombian economy.
When speaking of competitive and comparative disadvantages, it was said that the
technological advance of the United States together with the political influence, would leave
the South American country with a disadvantageous treaty, for not having enough tools to be
able to compete in commercial terms within the US market, The reality is that it was not a
question of competing only with the products of the United States, but also with those of
producers from all over the world, who are present and striving to gain a share in the largest
and most attractive market in the world. However, despite the popular rejection, the
Colombian government went ahead until the agreement was reached.
A little history….
The Trade Promotion Agreement between the United States and Colombia, also called TLC,
is a between Colombia and the United States approved on October 12, 2011 by the United
States Congress and in effect from May 15, 2012.
On February 27, 2006 this Treaty between Colombia and the United States was finalized,
after 21 months, 15 rounds and 100 meetings between the parties.
As for its legislative process, to enter into force with legal rigor, its ratification had to be
obtained by the congresses of the United States and Colombia.
From May 15, 2012 came into force the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) signed by Colombia
and the United States with the aim of promoting trade between the two countries. The Treaty
affects all sectors of the economy and national productive life, including ICT.
Likewise, in terms of direct purchases of foreign products, citizens will have at their disposal
shopping lists, mostly free of tariffs, which can be accessed through e-commerce services. In
this case it must be taken into account that even when the entrance taxes can be eliminated,
there will always be shipping costs that can increase the final value of a product. Here the
wholesale importers have the chance to win because they will be able to offer the usual
products, and others at a lower price, and customers will be able to save tariffs and direct
shipping costs.
In the United States, at the end of August 2006, President George W. Bush delivered the final
text of the agreement to the United States Congress for discussion and approval. Since April
2008, the vote for approval was postponed after former President Bush sent the treaty
untimely for approval, which was considered undue pressure by the Democratic Party led by
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. .
During the 2008 presidential campaign in the United States, the subject of the treaty came up
on occasion. The then candidate for the Republican Party of the United States John McCain
expressed his support in a televised debate, while the then candidate for the Democratic Party
of the United States President Barack Obama said that he does not think it appropriate while
in Colombia the violations persist. the human rights of trade unionists. On October 21, 2008,
the Adviser for Hemispheric Affairs of the Democratic campaign, Dan Restrepo, said that
Obama understands the importance of Colombia for the United States and that it could
eventually reevaluate the convenience of the treaty.
The delay in the final approval of the FTA, by the congresses of both countries, embarrassed
the exporters who enjoy the tariff benefits of the Andean Tariff Preferences and Drug
Eradication Law (ATPDEA).
For its part, the Colombian Congress ratified the FTA, through law 1143 of July 4, 2007 and
the Constitutional Court, declared it adjusted to the constitution, on July 24, 2008, by means
of the judgment C-750 of 2008.8 In The treaty was approved in the Colombian Congress
with the refusal of the left and center-left opposition groups in the parties of the Alternative
Democratic Pole and the Colombian Liberal Party, but later the main opponent of this project
would be the Congress of the United States that did not approve it after the Democratic Party
reached the majority in the congress of that country and changed the positions in front of the
policies of the Bush government. Finally, the treaty between Colombia and the United States
was approved by the House of Representatives and the US Senate on October 12, 2011.
The treaty was approved at the VI Summit of the Americas that took place in Cartagena from
April 9 to April 15, 2012, and entered into force on May 15, 2012.
As a result of the approval of this treaty a controversy arose, the supporters of the Treaty
consider that it has the following favorable effects:
The contribution of some percentage points to economic growth: the figure of this
contribution also remains without consensus.
The growth of the international trade volume of the country, both in exports and imports.
The improvement of the international perception of Colombia abroad, which should "reduce
somewhat the risk of the country and the cost of borrowing abroad".
The access (in a difficult proportion to be precise) of the Colombian companies to the
purchases of the American public sector.
Colombia wins with the FTA, because it has a stability contract in the rules of the game with
its main commercial partner. "
Those who are against the FTA argue in general that in the net balance Colombia would
continue to obtain a minimum profit, and reproach the following:
Unequal distribution of advantages of the FTA: The government officially assumed that there
are winners and affected when this treaty came into force. Different unions have expressed
their rejection of this agreement considering it harmful to the national economy, mainly in
the agricultural and intellectual property aspects. The sectors harmed are rice, wheat, corn,
sugar, poultry, cattle and swine. They will be affected, not because they disappear, but
because now they will have to earn less, work more and compete more. In any case, there
will be very large structural changes if the FTA goes into effect. The sectors most affected
by these changes will be: the agricultural sector, the public health sector (access to health is
affected by the section of the same in which the North American pharmaceutical monopolies
"managed to raise the protection standards of their sector, above the parameters of the WTO
... This will be reflected in less competition, greater monopoly and, therefore, the increase in
consumer prices "13), the industrial sector (by the entry of remanufactured products that
would compete with domestic producers at very low costs).
Jorge Enrique Robledo, senator of the opposition Democratic Alternative Pole, considered
that the FTA "is a mule and rider agreement", which will generate more poverty and with
which only the United States wins.
In addition to this, the lack of popular consultation was argued (which would be essential in
such an important matter). The disputes surrounding the FTA increased due to the absence
of a popular consultation on the matter. Until now, different unions, unions and ordinary
citizens have expressed their rejection of this agreement considering it harmful to the national
economy, mainly in the agricultural and intellectual property aspects. Other economic sectors
are clearly benefited, such as garments, flowers, plastics and leather goods. Faced with these
wide divergences, a popular consultation could be useful.