Free Trade Agreement Of The Americas

In December 1994, the leaders of 34 countries in the Western Hemisphere gathered in Miami for the Summit of the Americas, a triumphant event celebrating the emergence of democracy and the consolidation of free market economies throughout America. At the meeting, President Clinton was ready to realize President Bush`s dream of a free trade agreement from Anchorage to Tierra del Fuego. In the final declaration of the summit, the participating countries promised to establish, by 2005, a historic Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) linking all the economies of the hemisphere (except Cuba). At the Summit of the Americas, President Clinton said that the U.S. Free Trade Agreement “will enable us to create a partnership for prosperity, in which freedom, trade, and economic opportunity become the common property of the American people.” If this partnership is to involve all the peoples of the hemisphere and not just a relatively small group of elitist and well-connected investors, then the SAA process must be deeply democratized and reoriented. The future stability of the region depends on it. One of the most controversial topics of the treaty proposed by the United States is the concern for patents and copyrights. Critics argue that if the measures proposed by the United States were implemented and enforced, it would reduce scientific research in Latin America. On the Council of Canadians` left-wing website, Barlow wrote: “This agreement establishes global rules applicable to patents, copyrights and trademarks.

It has gone far beyond its initial protection of original inventions or cultural products and now allows the patenting of plants, animal forms and seeds. It promotes the private rights of companies over local communities and their genetic heritage and traditional medicines. “[10] This concept, known as `Bolivarism`, was proposed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. She was strongly supported by Bolivian President Evo Morales and Argentine President Nestor Kirchner. She enjoyed moderate support from Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. These countries took the lead in the creation of the Mercosur Trade Pact and the Banco del Sur Development Bank. The FTAA missed the 2005 deadline that followed the stalling of the meaningful negotiations at the 2005 World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference. [3] In the following years, some governments, particularly the United States, that did not want to lose a chance for hemispheric trade expansion, moved towards a series of bilateral trade agreements. However, the Heads of State and Government planned to continue discussions at the 6th US Summit in Cartagen, Colombia, in 2012, although these discussions did not take place. [4] [5] Like most other trade agreements, the ftAA would have increased trade by removing tariffs and other trade duties.

It would have improved market access for businesses by streamlining customs administration, reducing technical barriers to trade and improving transparency. It would have protected patent rights and installed the protection of the environment and occupational safety. Many public services, such as telecommunications, electricity and insurance, would have been opened up to foreign direct investment. After the signing of NAFTA, the United States hosted the U.S. summit in Miami in December 1994. At the time, most US countries wanted to use a deal that would help the region compete with the EU. If non-NAFTA countries unite in the hemisphere on the basis of existing trading blocs, they would have greater influence in their negotiations with NAFTA countries than if they were negotiating bilateral agreements or responding to the recommendations of the working groups. .

. .

Comments are closed.