Abstract
For about a decade, from 1994 until 2004, the FTAA project mobilized human and financial resources throughout the Americas as countries prepared the ground for negotiations. Still, those efforts were insufficient to overcome the lack of political commitment by the cochairs of the negotiations, the United States and Brazil, to transform the project into reality.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
George H.W. Bush, Remarks Announcing the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, White House, June 27, 1990. Available at The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=18644
Roger Porter, “The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. A New Approach to Economic Growth,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 32.4 (Winter 1990), 7.
The reliance on economic growth and private enterprise predominated despite indications that the profound asymmetries among the parties required cooperation in various institutional areas such as education, research, and development. Fernando Fajnzylber, “Technical Progress, Competitiveness and Institutional Change,” in Strategic Options for Latin America in the 1990s, ed. Colin I. Bradford Jr. (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1992), 121.
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Mas Allá de las Fronteras. El Nuevo Regionalismo en América Latina (Washington, DC: IDB, 2002), 37.
This factor is reinforced by studies that show, in the few cases in which foreign direct investment has increased, that there has been no evidence that trade agreements have been the cause. Sheila Page, “Regional Integration and the Investment Effect,” in Regional Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Political Economy of Open Regionalism, ed. Victor Bulmer-Thomas (London: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London, 2001), 45–64.
On the relevance of macroeconomic performance as the main variable in the attraction of foreign direct investment in Latin America, see Alfredo P. Montero, “Macroeconomic Deeds, Not Reform Words: The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America,” Latin American Research Review 43.1 (2008), 55–77.
See Roberto Bouzas and Jaime Ros, eds., Economic Integration in the Western Hemisphere (Notre Dame, IN; London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) for an early study containing data on individual trade blocs in the continent, with a cautionary view on the implications of hemispheric integration.
Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott, Western Hemisphere Economic Integration (Washington, DC: Institute of International Economics, 1994) addresses the question of hemispheric trade integration, but the focus is predominantly on potential gains.
Helio Jaguaribe, “A View from the Southern Cone,” in Latin America in a New World, ed. Abraham Lowenthal and G. Treverton (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994), 57.
Patrice M. Franko, Toward a New Security Architecture in the Americas. The Strategic Implications of the FTAA (Washington, DC: CSIS Press, 2000).
Raymond J. Ahearn and Alfred Reifman, US Interest in Western Hemisphere Free Trade, U.S. Congressional Research Service Report, November 12, 1993 (Washington, DC: U.S. Library of Congress/CRS, 1993).
George Bush, Remarks Announcing the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, June 27, 1990, available at The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=18644
A collection of articles exploring the meanings of democracy promotion in the U.S. foreign policy strategy is offered in Michael Cox, G. John Ikenberry, and Takashi Inoguchi, eds., American Democracy Promotion. Impulses, Strategies and Impacts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Pablo Rodas-Martini describes “dwarf regionalism” as a kind of regionalism that does not fit into the old mode of inward-orientation nor in the more optimistic views surrounding open regionalism, but which is commonly found in small economies heavily linked to a country in the North. In Pablo Rodas-Martini, “Central America: Toward Open Regionalism or Toward an Opening without Regionalism?,” in Regional Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Political Economy of Open Regionalism, ed. Victor Bulmer-Thomas (London: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London., 2001), 268.
S.R. Insanally, “Multilateralism in International Relations: Past Practice and Future Promise,” in Caribbean Imperatives. Regional Governance and Integrated Development, ed. Kenneth Hall and Denis Benn (Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers, 2005), 275.
For a perspective from Argentina, see former Minister of Industry and Foreign Trade during the negotiations of the sectoral agreements with Brazil, Roberto Lavagna, Argentina, Brasil, Mercosur. Una Decisión Estratégica, 1986–2001 (Buenos Aires: Ciudad Argentina, 1998).
For transformations in the Uruguayan foreign policy in the period, see Lincoln Bizzozero, “Uruguayan Foreign Policies in the 1990s: Continuities and Changes with a View to Recent Regionalisms,” in National Perspectives on the New Regionalism in the South, ed. Björn Hettne, András Inotai, and Osvaldo Sunkel (Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000), 177–197.
For a brief comment on the differences between Argentinean and Brazilian foreign policy orientation in the period, see Monica Hirst, “Mercosur’s Complex Political Agenda,” in Mercosur: Regional Integration, World Markets, ed. Riordan Roett (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1999), 35–47.
For an analysis of the reorientation of the Argentinean foreign policy under Carlos Menem, see Janina Onuki, “As Mudanças da Política Externa Argentina no Governo Menem” (PhD diss., Political Science Department, Universidade de São Paulo, 2002).
Rubens A. Barbosa and Luís Fernando Panelli César, “A Integração SubRegional, Regional e Hemisférica: O Esforço Brasileiro,” in Temas da Política Externa Brasileira II, ed. Gelson Fonseca Jr. and Sergio Henrique Nabuco de Castro (Sao Paulo: Paz e Terra, 1994), 301.
Mauricio Reina and Gladys Cristina Barrera, “An Analysis of Colombian Reactions to the EAI: Prospects for Success,” in The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. Issues and Prospects for a Free Trade Agreement in the Western Hemisphere, ed. Roy E. Green (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993), 185.
Jean Grugel, “The Chilean State and New Regionalism: Strategic Alliances and Pragmatic Integration,” in Regionalism across the North-South Divide: State Strategies and Globalization, ed. Jean Grugel and Wil Hout (London: Routledge, 1999), 62–78.
Malcolm D. Rowat, “Future Accession to NAFTA: The Case of Chile and the Mercosur,” in Beyond NAFTA: An Economic, Political and Sociological Perspective, ed. A.R. Riggs and Tom Velk (Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute, 1993), 198.
Michael Cox, “Wilsonianism Resurgent? The Clinton Administration and the Promotion of Democracy,” in Cox, Ikenberry, and Inoguchi, American Democracy, 219–239. For a defense of Clinton’s foreign policy views, see Stephen M. Walt, “Two Cheers for Clinton’s Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs 79.3 (2000), 63–79.
A critical evaluation is found in Richard Haas, The Reluctant Sheriff: The United States After the Cold War (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1997).
William J. Clinton, Address to the Nation on Haiti, September 15, 1994, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49093
In June 1991, the OAS members adopted the Santiago Commitment to Democracy and the Renewal of the Inter-American System and, through the OAS Resolution 1080, agreed upon a mechanism for collective action in case of disruption of democracy in any of the organization’s members. For a discussion on the achievements and limitations of the democracy cause as advanced by the OAS, see Andrew F. Cooper and Thomas Legler, “The OAS Democratic Solidarity Paradigm: Questions of Collective and National Leadership,” Latin American Politics and Society 43.1 (Spring 2001), 103–126.
See Richard E. Feinberg, Summitry of the Americas. A Progress Report (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1997), 53. Feinberg, former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council (1993–1996). The book contains a detailed narrative of the summit process, including the origin and rise of the idea within the U.S. administration.
Scott Otteman, “Clinton announces USTR-led effort to design post-NAFTA trade path,” Inside US Trade, December 3, 1993.
William J. Clinton, Remarks to the Executive Committee of the Summit of the Americas in Miami, Florida, July 18, 1994, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50504&st=Remarks+to+the+Executive+Committee+of+the+Summit+of+the+Americas&st1
Howard Wiarda, “After Miami: The Summit, the Peso Crisis, and the Future of US-Latin American Relations,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 37.1(1995), 43–68.
Ambassador Charles Gillespie, Jr.’s interview with David Scott Palmer, Washington, DC, February 14, 2002. Cited in David Scott Palmer, US Relations with Latin America during the Clinton Years (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2006), 108, fn.6 to chapter 5.
Inside U.S. Trade, “US shows early favour for NAFTA expansion over separate pacts,” January 14, 1994.
Inside U.S. Trade, “US seeks to build ‘Americas Free Trade Area’ at Miami Summit,” November 18, 1994.
The Rio Group was formed in 1986, out of the joint efforts of some Latin American countries to assist in the peace process in Central America. It included members of the Contadora Group—Venezuela, Mexico, Panama, and Colombia—and the support group—Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and Uruguay. The Group was designed as a dialogue forum for Latin American countries separated from the OAS and from U.S. influence. Its current membership includes: all South American states with the exception of Suriname and Guyana, Central America, except Belize, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and a rotative representative from CARICOM. Alicia Frohmann, “Regional Initiatives for Peace and Democracy: The Collective Diplomacy of the Rio Group,” in Responses to Regional Problems: The Case of Latin America and the Caribbean, ed. Carl Kaysen, Robert A. Pastor, and Laura W. Reed (Cambridge: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1994), 129–141.
Scott Otteman, “U.S. proposal for Americas’ free trade area relies on Bush Initiative,” Inside US Trade, November 25, 1994.
A detailed account of the FTAA process through the Third Trade Ministerial Meeting of May 1997 is offered by Pedro da Motta Veiga in “El Mercosur y el proceso de construcción del ALCA,” Revista Integración & Comercio 3 (September-December 1997), 3–31.
In regard to the WTO, Justin Robertson recalls that “one-third of members from the developing world are not physically present in Geneva and only twenty to twenty-five developing nations are actively engaged in WTO deliberations.” In Justin Robertson and Maurice A. East, “Introduction” to Diplomacy and Developing Nations. Post-Cold War Foreign-Policy Making Structures and Processes (Abington; New York: Routledge, 2005), 23.
John S. Odell, “Introduction,” to Negotiating Trade. Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFTA (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1–38.
Scott Otteman, “Confidential U.S. Plan sets out steps toward ‘foundation’ of FTAA,” Inside US Trade, May 5, 1995.
Scott Otteman, “US curtails labor, green language to gain FTAA consensus in Denver,” Inside US Trade, June 16, 1995.
According to the WTO, the single undertaking principle implies that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” Negotiations guided by this principle require countries to negotiate commitments across areas before a balanced agreement can be reached. Nevertheless, early agreements on specific topics are possible as long as all negotiating parties agree. For a critical analysis of the implications of the single undertaking for developing countries, see Chandrakant Patel, “Single Undertaking: A Straitjacket or a Variable Geometry?” Trade-Related Agenda, Development and Equity (T.R.A.D.E) Working Papers no.15, South Centre, May 2003, http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=363&Itemid=67
Stephen Haggard, “The Political Economy of Regionalism in the Western Hemisphere,” in The Post-NAFTA Political Economy. Mexico and the Western Hemisphere, ed. Carol Wise (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), 331.
Inside U.S. Trade, “Senior officials unable to bridge gap on hemispheric trade statement,” March 15, 1996.
Inside U.S. Trade, “Hemispheric trade ministers reach agreement on FTAA declaration,” March 22, 1996.
O Estado de S. Paulo, “Temas bilaterais dominam reunião da Alca,” April 17, 1997.
Inés Bustillo and José Antonio Ocampo highlight the need to address asymmetries, including in technical capacity, in order to allow smaller economies to actually benefit from the FTAA. In “Asymmetries and Cooperation in the FTAA,” in Integrating the Americas. FTAA and Beyond, ed. Antoni Estevadeordal, Dani Rodrik, Alan M. Taylor, and Andrés Velasco (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 723–754.
See references to Costa Rican Foreign Trade Minister, José Manuel Salazar, in Scott Otteman, “FTAA officials say talks must offer quick results to keep interest,” Inside US Trade, February 20, 1998.
Gary Hufbauer, Jeffrey J. Schott, and Barbara Kotschwar, “US Interests in Free Trade in the Americas,” in The United States and the Americas: A Twenty-First Century Viewi, ed. Albert Fishlow and James Jones (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1999), 58–78.
Inside U.S. Trade, “Deputy USTR sees ‘negotiation overload’ slowing FTAA progress,” August 6, 1999.
George W. Bush, Century of the Americas, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, August 25, 2000.
Reprinted in The George W. Bush Foreign Policy Reader. Presidential Speeches with Commentary, ed. John W. Dietrich (New York: M.E. Shapiro, 2005), 34–37.
Inside U.S. Trade, “NGO Alliance calls for release of FTAA negotiating texts,” November 10, 2000. Among the most articulate alliances emerging in connection to the FTAA process is the Hemispheric Social Alliance (http://www.asc-hsa.org/), whose origins are found in the meeting of civil society organizations that took place parallel to the Belo Horizonte Trade Ministerial Meeting in 1997.
Robert B. Zoellick, “A Republican Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs 79.1 (January/February 2000), 63–78.
James Baker, quoted in Kenneth Kidd, “Baker says free trade may prod other nations. Pact could result in ‘market liberalization club’,” Toronto Star, June 23, 1988, ME2.
Trade Negotiations Committee, Methods and Modalities for Negotiations (FTAA.TNC/20/Rev.1), derestricted October 18, 2002.
A study on the impact of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty measures imposed against Brazilian exports revealed that, during the year of investigation, exporters should expect to lose approximately 59 percent of its exports to that country. Aluisio de Lima-Campos, and Adriana Vito, “the Impact of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings on Brazilian Exports to the United States,” Journal of World Trade 38. (2004), 37–68.
Rubens A. Barbosa, “A View from Brazil,” The Washington Quarterly 24.2 (2001), 149–157.
Celso Lafer, “Novos Cenários de Negociação,” address delivered during the Seminar “Doha e o Pós-Doha: Novos Desafios da Negociação Comercial Internacional,” São Paulo, January 24, 2002. Reprinted in Celso Lafer, Mudam-se os Tempos. Diplomacia Brasileira, 2001–2002 (Brasília: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão/Instituto de Pesquisa de Relações Internacionais, 2002), 257. Original in Portuguese: “Não acredito … que se deva olhar para a Alca como um exercício fadado a uma confrontação insolúvel.”
Jornal do Brasil, “Canadá ofrece ao Brasil acordo comercial alternativo à Alca,” May 9, 2002.
For a coverage of the reactions in Brazil, see Patricia Campos Mello, “Especialista ve armadilhas para o Brasil,” O Estado de S. Paulo, February 12, 2003.
Vladimir Goltia, “Alca: proposta americana é discriminatória,” O Estado de S. Paulo, February 14, 2003.
Denise Chrispim Marin, “Itamaraty quer negociar diretamente com os EUA,” O Estado de S. Paulo, May 12, 2003, B5.
Denise Chrispim Marin, “Zoellick exige ALCA e descarta EUA-Mercosul,” O Estado de S. Paulo, May 28, 2003, B1.
Denise Chrispim Marin, “Fracassa nova proposta brasileira para a Alca,” O Estado de S. Paulo, July 16, 2003, B5.
Jamil Chade, “México e EUA rejeitam proposta de ‘Alca light’,” O Estado de S. Paulo, June 21, 2003, B5.
Denise Chrispim Marim, “Fracassa nova proposta brasileira para a Alca,” O Estado de S. Paulo, July 16, 2003, B5.
Oxfam released a report prior to the Cancún Meeting, in which it pointed out the negative effects, for developing countries, of a failure in Cancún. See Oxfam, “Running into Sand. Why Failure at the Cancún Trade Talks Threatens the World’s Poorest People,” Briefing Paper 53, August 2003.
See opinion article by Paulo Nogueira Baptista Jr., “A Alca depois de Cancún,” Folha de São Paulo, October 2, 2003.
Paulo Sotero, “Brasil lidera ‘ufanismo’,” diz assessor de Zoellick,” O Estado de S. Paulo, September 30, 2003, B14.
Chile, Costa Rica, Canada, Mexico, and Uruguay were among the countries which expressed disappointment with the bilateral solution. Sergio Leal, “Países da Futura Alca criticam acordo Brasil-Estados Unidos,” Valor Econômico, November 17, 2003.
Denise Chrispim Marin, “Uruguay desaprova modelo proposto por Brasil e EUA,” O Estado de S. Paulo, November 18, 2003.
Valor Econômico, “Estados Unidos partem para ofensive de acordos,” November 19, 2003.
Clovis Rossi, “Mercosur e G-3 duelam na reuniao da Alca,” Folha de Sao Paulo, February 2, 2004.
Clovis Rossi, “Surpreendido, Mercosul teve que sair ao ataque,” Folha de Sao Paulo, February 8, 2004.
O Estado de S. Paulo, “Um jogo de alto risco em Puebla,” February 3, 2004, A3.
The risk of failure, due to lack of political leadership to guide the FTAA was pointed out by I. M. Destler, “The United States and a Free Trade Area of the America. Notes toward a Political-Economic Analysis,” Notes of presentation delivered on June 1, 2002.
Donald R. Mackay, “Challenges Confronting the Free Trade Area of the Americas,” FOCAL Policy Papers 02–7 (June 2002).
Peter H. Smith, The Talons of the Eagle. Latin America, the United States, and the World, 3rd ed. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 342–343. Between 1998 and 2006, candidates associated to center-left and left-wing parties, won elections in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Monte Reel and Michael A. Fletcher, “Anti-US Protests Flare at Summit,” Washington Post, November 5, 2005, A01.
For a reflection on the social significance of the protests, see Jerónimo Montero, “Cumbre de las Américas en Mar del Plata: Victorias, Debates y Limitaciones de la Oposición,” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 6.1 (2007), 124–130, http://www.acme-journal.org/vol6/JM_s.pdf
C. Fred Bersgten, “A Renaissance for U.S. Trade Policy?,” Foreign Affairs 81.6 (November/December 2002), 86–98. Bergsten used the term competitive liberalization back in the mid-1990s, to celebrate the kind of liberalization taking place through multiple regional trade agreements, and guided by fierce competition among countries.
See C. Fred Bergsten, “Globalizing Free Trade,” Foreign Affairs 75.3 (May/June 1996), 105–120.
Aggarwal and Lin argue that competitive liberalization, by offering specific sectors a prize through bilateral trade agreements, contributes to weaken domestic pro-free trade coalitions. As a result, protectionist forces can pressure on governments without facing much opposition. In Vinod Aggarwal and Kun-Chin Lin, “Strategy without Vision: The U.S. and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation,” in APEC: The First Decade, ed. Jürgen Rüland, Eva Manske, and Werner Draguhn (London: Curzon Press, 2002), 91–122.
Dick K. Nanto and Thomas Lum, “US International Trade: Data and Forecasts,” Congressional Research Service Report No.IB96038 (Washington, DC: U.S. Library of Congress/CRS, 2003).
See Björn Hettne, “Regionalism, Security and Development: A Comparative Perspective,” in Comparing Regionalisms: Implications for Global Development, ed. Björn Hettne, András Inotai, and Osvaldo Sunkel (Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 34.
Helge Hveem, “The Regional Project in Global Governance,” in Theories of New Regionalism. A Palgrave Reader, ed. Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw (Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 97.
Manger, Pickup and Snijders” analysis of networks of preferential trade agreements indicates that they tend to generate fragmented systems with a hub-and-spoke orientation, in which major economic powers and middle powers are somehow linked, but smaller economies are excluded. If this picture is accurate, it should be expected that in order to be considered, less powerful economies will be likely to face even more asymmetrical terms in negotiations. In Mark S. Manger, Mark A. Pickup, and Tom Snijders, “When Country Interdependence is not a Nuisance: The Longitudinal Network Approach,” Working paper in progress, 2008.
Copyright information
© 2011 Zuleika Arashiro
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Arashiro, Z. (2011). The FTAA Negotiations. In: Negotiating the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Studies of the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230119055_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230119055_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-29473-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-11905-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)