Why the Bush Administration thinks an FTA is bad for Colombia

I’ve written several times about the U.S.-Colombia FTA and am not looking for overkill, but President Bush gave another speech while an administration official wrote in the State Department’s blog, and their logic prompts me to write again.

We’ve been told, in no uncertain terms, that failure to pass the FTA is a slap in Colombia’s face, as the Uribe government has been a close ally. Colombia, we are told, really needs this FTA to promote both economic prosperity and security. Much is at stake.

If that is the case, shouldn’t we expect to hear that the FTA actually benefits Colombia? From Bush’s speech:

Today almost all of Colombia's exports enter the United States duty-free. Yet American products exported to Colombia face tariffs of up to 35 percent for non-agricultural goods, and much higher for many agricultural products. Think about that. They export into the United States duty-free, and we don't have the same advantage. I would call that a one-sided economic agreement.

So the POTUS himself is saying that this FTA is good because it reduces Colombia’s advantage. How, then, does that promote Colombian prosperity? The status quo is currently one-sided in favor of Colombia.

Now, from Charles S. Shapiro, the Senior Coordinator of the State Department’s Western Hemisphere Affairs Free Trade Task Force:

The cup of Colombian coffee that I had this morning, the roses that I’m going to send to my mother for Mother’s Day along with the box of chocolates all come from Colombia into the United States, tariff free. American exporters on the other hand, pay high tariffs to send products such as machinery and fertilizers to Colombia that help produce these goods. Every day that we wait to pass the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA) is a day that American farmers, businesses and workers lose out. Free trade will benefit both of us.

If Colombia benefits now, and the U.S. doesn’t, then how does an FTA benefit both of us? Right now, Colombia has access but also protection of domestic industry, and an FTA gets rid of the latter.

If I were an advocate for the FTA, I would argue that the benefit derives from not having to deal with the constant vote wrangling associated with the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, which offers all those nice benefits but always faces some degree of congressional skepticism. That skepticism is enhanced when Colombia is lumped in with Bolivia and Ecuador. Why, then, does the administration never even mention this dynamic?

All this, I believe, helps us understand the Bush administration’s enduring problems with Latin America. It cannot even construct a coherent argument in favor of its own allies.