• WTO

• Fast Track

• Peru, Panama & Colombia FTAs
• NAFTA
• CAFTA
• NAFTA Expansion Agreements

• Trade as an Election Issue
• Imported Food & Product Safety
• Immigration
• Offshoring
• State and Local Governance
• Harmonization
• Other Issues

• Español
• Portugues

• NAFTA Job Loss Data
• Congressional Voting Records
• Take Action!
• BLOG

Fair Trade Archive: GTW E-Newsletters, Action Alerts, and Updates

Peru, Panama & Colombia FTAs: NAFTA Expansion to the Rainforest and Beyond

Haga "click" aquí para leer sobre tratados de libre comercio entre los EEUU y la Región Andina en español.

For the latest updates on the Peru, Panama and Colombia FTAs, please see the relevant section of our blog, Eyes on Trade.

The Bush administration notified Congress of its intent to negotiate a trade agreement with the South American countries of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia in November of 2003. The idea was to create an Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA). Like CAFTA, AFTA would be another piece to add to the FTAA jigsaw puzzle and is based on the same failed NAFTA model, which has caused the "race to the bottom" in labor and environmental standards and promotes privatization and deregulation of key public services.

Because of the large territories of bio-diverse Amazon tropical rainforest and long histories of violence and unrest in the Andean countries, the mistaken application of the one-size fits all NAFTA model of trade in the region would likely have devastating consequences.

Despite heavy pressure from the Bush administration, the presidents of Ecuador and Bolivia have announced that they are not interested in NAFTA-style trade deals. But Peru and Colombia bowed to threats from the administration and Republican congressional leaders who threatened to end the countries’ existing access to U.S. markets if they didn’t sign up for full fledged NAFTA deals. The result was the U.S.-Peru and U.S.-Colombia “free trade” agreements (FTAs).

In December 2006, the U.S. and Panama concluded long delayed negotiations, and and a U.S.-Panama FTA was added to the queue of agreements that the Bush administration hopes Congress will ratify – with an up or down vote under the undemocratic "Fast Track" rules.

Incoming Democratic House and and environmental Senate leaders had long been critical of the weak labor rights provisions in the deals. But, as Public Citizen and the large coalition of labor, environmental, Latino, small farm, and faith groups have long argued, the unacceptable labor provisions are just the beginning of what needs to be fixed so that these agreements meet a minimal “do no harm” test.

Unfortunately, May 2007 brought shockingly bad news. A handful of Democrats in the House of Representatives struck a "deal" with President Bush on the Peru and Panama FTAs that made needed improvements to the labor and environmental provisions, but unfortunately left in almost all the bad NAFTA-style provisions that fair trade groups demanded be taken out. Thus, the deal only put a new roof on a condemned building.

The Peru FTA was passed by Congress in late 2007, but only after a majority of House Democrats voted against it - the first time in literally decades that over half of a majority party voted against its leadership.

Learn more about the many problems plaguing the Peru, Panama and Colombia pacts by visiting the issue-areas listed in depth.

»	GTW Fact Sheet: Colombia NAFTA Expansion - Economic and Human Rights Nightmare (PDF)

»	USLEAP: Violence Against Colombia Trade Unionists and Impunity (PDF)

»	Afro-Peruvian and Afro-Colombian Organizations Oppose the Free Trade Agreements (pdf)

»	Peter Riggs: Why are we negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with Tax Haven Panama?

Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations, professional associations or government agencies, we can remain independent and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we depend on the generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on behalf of the public interest. If you would like to help us in our fight, click here.