EL
TLC AMENAZA DESCARRILAR LA LUCHA ANTIDROGAS EN COLOMBIA
FUENTE: EL NUEVO HERALD
JOSHUA GOODMAN / AP
ESPINAL, Colombia
Durante 25 años, Víctor Murillo
ha cultivado arroz en un terreno de dos hectáreas en la
franja agrícola del centro de Colombia. Pero ahora que el
nuevo acuerdo comercial con Estados Unidos amenaza su sustento,
está tentado a cambiarse a un nuevo producto: el arbusto
de coca, origen de la cocaína.
''Qué nos queda cuando todo lo duro que
ha trabajado es destruido de un día para otro'', dijo el
agricultor de 50 años mientras observaba la cosecha de uno
de sus campos.
El acuerdo bilateral será el más
amplio de Washington en el hemisferio occidental desde que se suscribió el
Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (NAFTA) en
1994. El texto de lo acordado aún no se publica, pero fue
firmado en febrero y debe ser ratificado por los Congresos de cada
país antes de que entre en vigor el año entrante.
Similar a otros ocho acuerdos comerciales en
la región, el pacto provee acceso libre de aranceles inmediato
para todos, excepto una mínima fracción, de los bienes
intercambiados entre los países, que representan $14,300
millones anuales.
El presidente Alvaro Uribe, un enérgico
aliado de Washington en Sudamérica, afirma que el tratado
impulsará las exportaciones colombianas en un 10 por ciento,
abrirá las puertas a una bonanza de inversión extranjera
y creará 380,000 nuevos empleos.
Pero aun si esas optimistas metas se alcanzan,
no todos los beneficios serán repartidos equitativamente.
Lo mismo para el firmado este mes y para los suscritos con Chile,
Perú, Centroamérica y República Dominicana.
PLAN COLOMBIA
Stunning recovery warrants continued U.S. support
FUENTE: MIAMI HERALD
By R. NICHOLAS BURNS
www.state.gov
During the last five years, the Colombian people have produced the
single greatest success story in Latin America. Led by President
Alvaro Uribe, Colombia has reclaimed its territory from drug gangs,
restored respect for the rule of law, battled vicious terrorist groups
and returned democracy to the people. These are remarkable achievements.
The United States has given help to Colombia in each of these struggles. With the consent of the U.S. Congress, we should continue to support
Colombians to take back their country from drug traffickers and
terrorists.
Less than a decade ago, Colombia was a country under siege. Guerrillas
on the left and paramilitaries on the right controlled wide swaths
of its territory. Political institutions were corroded by drug
money. And drug trafficking to the United States was at an all-time
high. Our two governments agreed on Plan Colombia -- a road map
requiring a determined and energetic Colombian government campaign
to take back the country. The United States agreed to help finance
this effort.
There is more good news in recent months.
• Last week yet another murderous
paramilitary organization laid down its weapons. More than 30,000
''paras'' have done so
over the past two years.
• One of the leftist guerrilla armies,
having failed to win power on the battlefield, is now pursuing
peace in talks with
the government.
• More than 300 criminals have been
extradited to the United States during the Uribe administration.
• Both common crime and human rights
abuses are declining.
• The economy is growing -- more
than 5 percent in 2006. In December the United States and Colombia
concluded a free-trade
agreement that should accelerate that growth and create thousands
of jobs for the poor and marginalized. We want to see the benefits
of free trade and democracy flow straight to the poorest people
in our hemisphere.
The United States is standing alongside Colombia in its offensive
against the drug cartels. Together we seized more than 223 metric
tons of cocaine in 2005 alone and more than 700 tons since 2001.
We helped the government of Colombia eradicate more than 340,000
acres of coca and 3,900 acres of opium poppy in 2005. In addition
to the ''push'' of our counter-drug and counter-terror cooperation,
the ''pull'' of our rural-development programs in Colombia have
helped farmers plant more than 200,000 acres of legal crops in
the past five years and improved the lives of more than 64,000
farm families, giving them a viable alternative to coca cultivation.
Our economic-assistance programs have leveraged more than $81
million in private funds and $340 million in public funds to create
nearly 100,000 new full-time jobs. We have provided humanitarian
assistance to more than two million people displaced by the conflict
and aided more than 2,800 former child soldiers.
Despite tremendous strides, there is still a war to be won in
this strategically important country, and the United States needs
to extend a hand to its friends. Helping our Colombian partners
consolidate their successes is one of the most important U.S. priorities
in Latin America. Colombia is the source of more than 90 percent
of the cocaine and nearly half of the heroin entering the United
States. What happens there directly affects our cities and towns.
In his 2007 budget, President Bush has requested funding to ensure
that there is no let up in the prosecution of Colombia's war against
narco-terrorists. Even as the Colombian government is increasingly
assuming the costs for this campaign, we hope that Congress will
agree that Colombia's stunning recovery warrants continued U.S.
support.
As Latin America's third-largest country, Colombia has a profound
impact on the peace and stability of the region. Colombia still
faces a destabilizing threat from drug cartels and well-armed,
drug-financed terrorist groups. These thugs hold three of our fellow
citizens hostage, and we are doing our utmost to secure their release.
Yet the steady progress of the Uribe administration gives every
hope that the Colombian narco-terrorist threat will be defeated.
The United States' investment in Colombia is paying off. Colombia
is clearly a better place than it was before we embarked on our
joint undertaking to win Colombia back from the criminal gangs
that were destroying the country. We seek the support of the U.S.
Congress to finish the job we embarked on together -- creating
a secure and peaceful Colombia for the benefit of both the American
and Colombian peoples.
R. Nicholas Burns is undersecretary for political affairs at the
Department of State.
CHÁVEZ:
SOMOS AMIGOS DE COLOMBIA
FUENTE: EL NUEVO HERALD
Associated Press
SAO PAULO - El presidente venezolano, Hugo
Chávez, afirmó el
miércoles que es "amigo" de Colombia y de su colega
Alvaro Uribe con quien mantendrá relaciones comerciales
y políticas a pesar de su desacuerdo por la firma de un
tratado de libre comercio entre Bogotá y Washington.
La firma en febrero del TLC entre Colombia
y Estados Unidos "son
cosas de Estado, de soberanía de los Estados. Yo respeto
profundamente la soberanía de Colombia y la legitimidad
del gobierno de Uribe. El lo sabe, todo el mundo lo sabe. Somos
amigos y estoy seguro de que seguiremos hablando", dijo el
mandatario venezolano esta madrugada al llegar a un hotel de Sao
Paulo donde en la jornada se reunirá con los presidentes
de Brasil y Argentina.
"No se romperán las relaciones comerciales, económicas
políticas, tecnológicas con Colombia", agregó el
presidente citado en un nota del Ministerio de Comunicaciones e
Información de Venezuela.
Chávez junto a los presidentes de Brasil, Luiz Inacio Lula
da Silva, y el mandatario argentino, Néstor Kirchner, deben
discutir en Sao Paulo el proyecto de construcción de un
gasoducto desde Venezuela hasta Argentina, un tubería de
más de 8.000 kilómetros y una inversión por
encima de los 20.000 millones de dólares.
"El proyecto para el cual se invertirán más
de 20 mil millones de dólares, será la columna vertebral
de la integración latinoamericana", dijo Chávez
que al igual que Kirchner debe retornar a su país al final
de la jornada.
Sin embargo, el tema de la integración energética
e incluso las posibilidades de realizar el tendido del gasoducto
han quedado de lado ante la crisis que estalló dentro de
la Comunidad Andina de Naciones (CAN) ante el anuncio de Chávez
de abandonar el bloque surgido en 1969 entre su país, Colombia,
Ecuador, Perú y Bolivia.
Chávez dijo el 19 de abril que Venezuela saldría
de la CAN porque otros miembros como Colombia y Perú habían
firmado de forma "inconsulta" acuerdos de libre comercio
con Washington, al que casi a diario el mandatario venezolano lanza
acusaciones que van desde querer derrocarlo, hasta buscar apoderarse
de la ingente riqueza petrolera de Venezuela, quinto exportador
mundial de crudo.
El presidente venezolano, cuyo país es uno de los principales
abastecedores de crudo a Estados Unidos, ha dicho que reconsideraría
su salida del bloque si Colombia y Perú también reconsideran
sus acuerdos con Estados Unidos.
El presidente de Colombia, Alvaro Uribe,
respondió a Caracas
el martes asegurando que Venezuela a pesar de su "alterada" relación
con Washington, tenía un fluido intercambio comercial con
Estados Unidos y que otros países también tenían
derecho a entrar al mercado estadounidense con productos distintos
al petróleo.
Uribe, durante una fugaz visita a Brasilia
para hablar con Lula, agregó que esperaba tanto una mejora en las relaciones de
Caracas y Washington como reunirse con Chávez para hablar
de reformas a la CAN y convertirla en "una auténtica
comunidad bolivariana...como lo soñara el Libertador (Simón)
Bolívar, una comunidad andina bolivariana, una comunidad
andina que incorpore un capítulo social, que exija de todos
sus integrantes cumplir en cosas definidas".
U.S. TRADE DEALS EMBITTER LATIN AMERICANS
FUENTE: THE NEW YORK TIMES
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- With the rise of China and stiff competition
from Europe, the United States has been flexing its economic muscle
in its own backyard.
Since 2003, when attempts to secure a hemispheric-wide free trade
zone broke down, U.S. negotiators have signed bilateral, free trade
agreements with nine Latin American nations. Two more, with Ecuador
and Panama, are in the pipeline.
Despite skepticism among U.S. labor groups and Congress, those
agreements have been an unqualified success for American exporters.
For example, U.S. exports to Chile have almost doubled, to $5.2
billion last year, in the two years since the two countries signed
a deal, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said.
But among Latin Americans, the dollar diplomacy has left a bitter
taste.
''Nobody who sat across the negotiating table from the United
States came out of the talks feeling they got a fair deal,'' said
Peter Hakim, president of the nonpartisan Inter-American Dialogue
think tank in Washington. ''And many feel they've been outright
cheated.''
Part of the failure to impress is attributable to a surge of leftist
leaders in Latin America, who've deftly capitalized on the region's
traditional protectionism and mistrust of Washington.
But even economists concede that free trade has barely helped
the region reduce widespread poverty, which has remained stagnant
for decades.
Moreover, the pacts may end up hurting farmers and rural peasants
who make up almost half of Latin America's 500 million people.
By permanently locking in trade preferences, countries entering
trade deals are effectively turning a blind eye to the $17 billion
that U.S. farmers receive annually in government subsidies, making
it extremely tough to compete.
Not surprisingly, support for U.S. free trade deals in Latin America
may be turning.
In Ecuador, Indian protesters last month paralyzed much of the
country for nearly two weeks demanding that President Alfredo Palacio
suspend trade talks with the United States that have been ongoing
for years.
And even the signing of a deal is no guarantee of its implementation.
Legislatures in Costa Rica and Peru have stubbornly refused to
rubber stamp recent deals even as calls by opposition politicians
for national referendums have grown louder.
Still, despite the push by Argentina and Brazil to create a South
American trade zone, for much of the region the price of saying
no to Uncle Sam remains too high. Even if that means betraying
popular goals of regional solidarity.
The experience of the Andean Community trade bloc -- comprised
of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela -- is a case
in point.
The recent trade deals by Colombia and Peru with the United States
sounded the death knell for the 39-year-old trade bloc, at least
in spirit. For example, in providing a quota for American soy products,
Colombia effectively shut out Bolivia from what has been until
now its top soy market, worth $170 million a year.
Citing Peru and Colombia's defections, President Hugo Chavez of
Venezuela, a staunch opponent of U.S. free-trade deals, announced
last week that he was pulling out of the trade bloc.
It remains to be seen how strongly the Venezuelan pullout could
affect the $8 billion in annual trade among bloc members, and Venezuela's
commerce minister said over the weekend that the withdrawal would
be gradual, over five years.
The Andean Community says that trade among member countries has
risen on average by 13.5 percent a year since 1990, when it began
gradually lifting tariffs and liberalizing trade.
COLOMBIAN FARMERS FEAR CHEAP U.S. IMPORTS
FUENTE: THE NEW YORK TIMES
ESPINAL, Colombia (AP) -- For 25 years, Victor Murillo has grown
rice on a five-acre plot in Colombia's central farm belt. But a
new trade pact with the United States threatens his livelihood,
and he's tempted to switch to a new crop: the tall, stalky coca
plant that yields cocaine.
''What choice do you have when everything you worked hard to build
is destroyed overnight?'' the 50-year-old farmer says as he oversees
the harvest of one of his fields.
The bilateral trade deal would be Washington's biggest in the
Western Hemisphere since the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) in 1994. The agreement's text has yet to be made public,
though it was signed in February, and must be approved by each
country's legislature before it takes effect next year.
Similar to eight other U.S. trade deals in the region, the pact
provides immediate duty-free access to all but a fraction of the
$14.3 billion in goods traded each year between the United States
and Colombia.
President Alvaro Uribe, Washington's staunchest South American
ally, claims the pact will boost Colombia's exports by 10 percent,
usher in a foreign investment bonanza and create 380,000 new jobs
-- all within a few years.
But even if those optimistic targets are met, not all the benefits
will be shared equally. The same is true for the U.S.-Peru trade
pact signed this month and for those Washington has reached with
Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala
and the Dominican Republic.
Colombia's 28,000 rice growers -- as well as corn, cereal and
poultry farmers -- say the trade pact threatens to put them out
of business for good.
That's because, like farmers everywhere, many struggle to eke
out an existence while their U.S. counterparts receive generous
government subsidies.
To lessen the impact, trade barriers for sensitive agricultural
goods will be removed gradually over a period of 12-19 years. Nevertheless,
in the first year Colombians must import a 87,000-ton quota of
U.S. white rice -- representing nearly 6 percent of Colombia's
annual production -- and the quota increases by 4.5 percent every
year thereafter.
In the short term, a feared flood of cheap imports could depress
the price Colombian farmers get for their rice by as much as 30
percent, says Rafael Hernandez, general manager of Fedearroz, the
country's rice growers association.
But a bigger concern is what happens if farmers, unable to compete,
turn to illegal crops like coca or poppy, the base ingredient of
heroin.
Especially in the central, rice-growing province of Meta, where
coca and rice grow almost side by side, ''if the government doesn't
help farmers, the drug traffickers will,'' said Hernandez.
Colombian negotiators used the same argument at the bargaining
table to win concessions from their U.S. counterparts.
Specifically, they wanted the Bush administration to pony up additional
funds for alternative economic development programs that currently
comprise about 20 percent of the $700 million the country receives
each year as part of Plan Colombia, as the bilateral anti-narcotics
effort is known.
But each time the issue was floated the answer was the same: business
is business.
''It didn't matter that Colombia is the world's biggest producer
of cocaine,'' said Carlos Gustavo Cano, who participated in early
rounds of talks as Uribe's agricultural minister. Rather than sign
off on an accord they considered one-sided, Cano and four other
Colombian negotiators resigned last year.
''There were red lines I was not prepared to cross,'' said Cano,
now a board member of Colombia's central bank.
Ironically, Colombia already enjoyed low-tariff access to the
U.S. market under the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Eradication
Act. But those preferences are set to expire on Dec. 31 and the
U.S. government, increasing its leverage during free trade talks,
announced they wouldn't be renewed.
Uribe, who faces re-election May 28, has been touting the agreement
as a major foreign policy achievement.
But Cano, who considers himself a free trader, said the rush to
sign an agreement was a ''grave error.'' His concern has been echoed
by poverty relief advocates and several economists, among them
Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz.
The concern is that by liberalizing trade, Colombia could see
a repeat of the 1990's, when coca production skyrocketed.
Although a direct link is hard to prove, the opening up of the
state-heavy economy last decade, which was blamed for leaving hundreds
of thousands of rural workers unemployed, coincided with a tripling
in coca production.
''Every time the agricultural sector has been weakened, the cultivation
of illegal crops has strengthened,'' said Cano.
Others doubt such doomsday scenarios.
Sectors like the low-cost textile industry stand to make gains
that could allow them to catch up with Mexican exporters with whom,
before NAFTA, they competed head-on.
''Some industries will have a difficult time adjusting but the
net effect will be more jobs, more investment and more economic
growth -- otherwise we wouldn't have sought a deal in the first
place,'' said Hernando Gomez, Colombia's chief trade negotiator.
Still, there's little denying that at the heart of Colombia's
drug problem is its huge mass of unemployed and poor peasantry.
Gomez, echoing the claims of U.S. trade negotiations, says rural
workers should see benefits in the form of lower prices for foodstuffs,
machinery that increases crop yields as well as the opportunity
to export high-margin crops like mangos and other exotic fruits.
To facilitate the conversion, the government plans to provide subsidized
loans to farmers.
The loans would come in a farm bill that's yet to be introduced
and would be worth about $220 million a year, according to Gomez.
That's a pittance compared to the $17 billion that U.S. producers
receive annually in government subsidies, an asymmetry that will
be locked in as a result of the accord.
And even the agreement's promoters acknowledge that Colombia will
have to be a prodigious administrator of those limited funds to
fulfill Uribe's lofty expectations.
''Free trade is no panacea -- for Colombia to fully benefit from
this deal it will need to accompany the agreement with sound economic
policies that boost competitiveness,'' said Jeffrey Schott, senior
fellow at Washington's Institute for International Economics.
COMERCIO AMENAZA DESCARRILAR LUCHA ANTIDROGAS EN COLOMBIA
FUENTE: EL NUEVO HERALD
JOSHUA GOODMAN
Associated Press
ESPINAL, Colombia - Durante 25 años, Víctor Murillo
ha cultivado arroz en un terreno de dos hectáreas en la
franja agrícola del centro de Colombia. Pero ahora que el
nuevo acuerdo comercial con Estados Unidos amenaza su sustento,
está tentado a cambiarse a un nuevo producto: el arbusto
de coca, origen de la cocaína.
"Qué nos queda cuando todo lo duro que ha trabajado
es destruido de un día para otro", dijo el agricultor
de 50 años mientras observaba la cosecha de uno de sus campos.
El acuerdo bilateral será el más amplio de Washington
en el hemisferio occidental desde que se suscribió el Tratado
de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (NAFTA) en 1994.
El texto de lo acordado aún no se publica, pero fue firmado
en febrero y debe ser ratificado por los congresos de cada país
antes de que entre en vigor el año entrante.
Similar a otros ocho acuerdos comerciales
en la región,
el pacto provee acceso libre de aranceles inmediato para todos,
excepto una mínima fracción, de los bienes intercambiados
entre los países, que representan un intercambio de 14.300
millones de dólares anuales.
El presidente Alvaro Uribe, un enérgico aliado de Washington
en Sudamérica, afirma que el tratado impulsará las
exportaciones colombianas en un 10%, abrirá las puertas
a una bonanza de inversión extranjera y creará 380.000
nuevos empleos, todo en unos cuantos años.
Pero aun si esas optimistas metas se alcanzan,
no todos los beneficios serán repartidos equitativamente. Lo mismo es cierto para
el acuerdo firmado con Perú firmado este mes y para los
suscritos con Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras,
Guatemala y la República Dominicana.
Los 28.000 arroceros colombianos _así como los cultivadores
de maíz, cereales y pollo_ dicen que el acuerdo comercial
los barrerá del mercado.
Eso se debe a que, como todos los granjeros, luchan por la subsistencia
a duras penas mientras sus colegas estadounidenses reciben jugosos
subsidios gubernamentales.
Para aminorar el impacto, las barreras
arancelarias para los productos agrícolas sensibles serán removidas gradualmente
en los próximos 12 a 19 años. Aun así, en
el primer año, Colombia importará una cuota de 79.000
toneladas de arroz, que equivale al 6% de la producción
local, y a partir de ahí la cuota aumentará un 4,5%
anual.
En el corto plazo, una temida oleada de
importaciones baratas deprimirán los precios que los agricultores colombianos
reciben hasta en un 30%, estimó el gerente general de la
Gremial de Arroceros de Colombia, Rafael Hernández.
Pero una mayor preocupación es lo que pasará si
los granjeros, incapaces de competir, cambian sus cultivos a otros
ilegales, como la coca o la amapola, que da origen a la heroína.
Especialmente en el Meta, un departamento con vastos sembradíos
de arroz, en donde la coca también crece a la par. "Si
el gobierno no ayuda a los agricultores, los traficantes de drogas
lo harán", dijo Hernández.
Los negociadores colombianos esgrimieron
el mismo argumento en las pláticas en busca de concesiones
de sus contrapartes estadounidenses.
Específicamente, querían que el gobierno de George
W. Bush desembolsara fondos adicionales para programas de desarrollo
económico alternativo que actualmente comprometen el 20%
de los 700 millones de dólares que el país recibe
cada año como parte del plan Colombia, la iniciativa binacional
de lucha antinarcóticos.
Pero la respuesta fue siempre la misma: negocios son negocios.
"No les importó que Colombia sea el más grande
productor mundial de cocaína", dijo el ex ministro
de agricultura Gustavo Cano, que participó en las primeras
rondas de negociación del acuerdo.
A cambio de firmar un acuerdo que consideraban
injusto, Cano y otros cuatro negociadores colombianos renunciaron
el año
pasado.
"Había unas líneas rojas que no estaba preparado
para cruzar", dijo Cano, ahora miembro de la directiva del
banco central de Colombia.
Irónicamente, Colombia ya disfrutaba de beneficios arancelarios
en Estados Unidos bajo el Acta Andina de Preferencias Comerciales
y Erradicación de Drogas. Pero esos beneficios caducan el
31 de diciembre y el gobierno de Estados Unidos, para incrementar
la presión durante las negociaciones, advirtió que
no serían renovadas.
Uribe, que aspira a la reelección en las elecciones del
28 de mayo, trata de presentar el acuerdo como un gran logro de
política exterior.
Pero Cano, que se considera a sí mismo un impulsor del
libre comercio, dijo que la prisa en firmar el acuerdo fue un "error
grave". Sus preocupaciones tienen eco en las organizaciones
que abogan por la lucha contra la pobreza y en varios economistas,
entre ellos el premio Nóbel Joseph Stiglitz.
La preocupación es que liberalizando el comercio, Colombia
puede ver una repetición de lo que ocurrió en la
década del 90, cuando la producción de coca se disparó.
Aunque es difícil hallar un vínculo directo, la
apertura comercial de la década pasada, a la que se atribuyó dejar
a cientos de miles de trabajadores rurales desempleados, coincidió con
la triplicación de la producción de coca.
"Cada vez que el sector agrícola se debilita, los
cultivos ilegales se fortalecen", dijo Cano.
Otros dudan de ese escenario catastrófico.
Sectores como el de los textiles aspiran
a obtener ganancias que les permita alcanzar a los exportadores
mexicanos con quienes,
antes de que suscribieran el NAFTA, competían cara a cara.
"Algunas industrias tendrán un difícil período
de ajustes, pero el efecto final será la creación
de más empleos, más inversión y más
crecimiento económico. De otra manera no hubiéramos
buscado un acuerdo comercial", afirmó el jefe de negociadores
colombianos, Hernando Gómez.
No cabe duda de que el corazón del
problema de drogas en Colombia es la gran masa de campesinos
pobres y desempleados.
Gómez afirmó que los trabajadores rurales deberían
beneficiarse de ver víveres más baratos, maquinaria
que incremente la producción en los cambios así como
en la oportunidad de exportar un amplio margen de cultivos como
mangos y otras frutas exóticas.
Para facilitar la conversión, el gobierno planea proveer
préstamos subsidiados a los granjeros.
Pero la revelación de ayuda a granjeros colombianos por
unos 220 millones de dólares anuales, según Gómez,
será una miseria en comparación a lo de los 17.000
millones que reciben los estadounidenses en subsidios gubernamentales,
una asimetría que quedará sellada como resultado
del acuerdo.
Y aún los promotores del acuerdo comercial reconocen que
Colombia tendrá que ser un prodigioso administrador para
que esos limitados fondos sirvan para llenar las nobles expectativas
de Uribe.
"El libre comercio no es una panacea; para que Colombia se
beneficie completamente de este tratado será necesario acompañarlo
con un sólido paquete de políticas económicas
que impulsen la competitividad", dijo Jeffrey Schott, un analista
del Instituto para Economía Internacional con sede en Washington.
COLOMBIA BAJA MONTO PARA SUBSIDIOS POR TLC CON EEUU
FUENTE: EL NUEVO HERALD
Associated Press
BOGOTA - La cifra que Colombia destinaría a subsidios para
los sectores que puedan salir afectados por la firma de un tratado
de libre comercio (TLC) con Estados Unidos bajó a 154 millones
de dólares, de los 220 millones que inicialmente se ofrecían.
La viceministra de Hacienda Gloria Inés Cortés dijo
el martes en la noche en un debate en el Senado sobre el TLC que
los 154 millones de dólares "es una cifra preliminar
que en los próximos días puede aumentar, quedar en
el nivel actual o disminuir".
El presidente Alvaro Uribe había prometido alrededor de
220 millones de dólares en el presupuesto del 2007 para
subsidiar a los sectores que fueran vulnerables a pérdidas
por el TLC.
La viceministra explicó que la cifra se redujo debido al
déficit fiscal registrado en el primer bimestre del año,
que ascendió al 1,7% del producto interno bruto (PIB), alrededor
de 2.000 millones de dólares.
El gobierno se propone subsidiar productos
agrícolas, especialmente
el arroz, y la avicultura que son los renglones más afectados
por la competencia del libre comercio.
En contraste, Estados Unidos entrega aproximadamente
17.000 millones de dólares en subsidios y ayudas a los agricultores de su
país.
Los textos finales del TLC todavía no se conocen pues se
encuentran en la etapa de revisión por parte de los negociadores
de ambos países, que los cotejan para determinar que todo
está en orden, proceso que esperan concluya esta semana
para proceder a su publicación, informó el ministro
de Comercio, Jorge Humberto Botero.
Una vez publicado el TLC será firmado por los representantes
de Estados Unidos y Colombia y 90 días después debe
ser sometido a la ratificación de los congresos. En Colombia,
además, se requiere el aval de la Corte Constitucional.
El TLC es un tema electoral en Colombia.
Los dos principales candidatos de la oposición, Horacio Serpa, del Partido Liberal y Carlos
Gaviria del Polo Democrático Alternativo, que aglutina los
sectores de izquierda, anunciaron que de ganar la Presidencia el
28 de mayo no firmarán el tratado.
En cambio Uribe, que se presenta a la reelección y es favorito
en todas las encuestas para ganar un segundo mandato de cuatro
años, anunció que buscará acelerar el trámite
del tratado en el Congreso, en donde tiene amplias mayorías,
para que entre en vigencia el año próximo.
Uribe explicó que el 31 de diciembre terminan las preferencias
arancelarias que tiene Colombia para exportar a los Estados Unidos,
en recompensa por su lucha contra el narcotráfico, y por
eso se requiere que en 2007 esté vigente el TLC.
Estados Unidos compra unos 8.000 millones
de dólares que
son el 40% del total de las exportaciones colombianas, según
estadísticas del Ministerio de Comercio.
PERÚ Y COLOMBIA DEFIENDEN TLC; RECHAZAN PRESIÓN
VENEZOLANA
FUENTE: EL NUEVO HERALD
GISELA SALOMON
Associated Press
CORAL GABLES, Florida, EE.UU - Representantes
de Perú y
Colombia rechazaron el miércoles las presiones de Venezuela
para que sus países desistan de los tratados de libre comercio
con Estados Unidos, y negaron que la Comunidad Andina de Naciones
vaya a desaparecer si el gobierno de Hugo Chávez se retira
del grupo.
Dijeron además que los tratados que ambos países
negociaron con Estados Unidos respetan los estatutos legales de
la CAN, refutando así uno de los argumentos presentados
por Venezuela para justificar su salida del grupo.
"Es una especie de chantaje", calificó Eduardo
Ferreyros, coordinador general de las negociaciones del Tratado
de Libre Comercio que Perú firmó con Estados Unidos,
a las presiones venezolanas. "Lo que Venezuela ha hecho es
un exceso", dijo a la prensa al terminar una sesión
sobre los países andinos organizada por el Consejo de las
Américas.
Ferreyros sugirió incluso que el posible alejamiento de
Venezuela podría beneficiar al bloque andino, que también
integran Bolivia y Ecuador.
"Esto debe servir para que la comunidad andina se modernice,
se refuerce y apunte más hacia el mundo. Creo que esto será para
mejor", manifestó al terminar una conferencia sobre
los tratados de libre comercio y las elecciones en Perú y
Colombia organizada por el Consejo de las Américas.
Si esto significa la salida de Venezuela, "tendrá que
ser así, pero el Perú no puede frenar sus posibilidades
de desarrollo por un proyecto venezolano", declaró.
Agregó luego que el gobierno del presidente Alejandro Toledo
espera que el congreso de Perú apruebe el pacto comercial
antes de julio, cuando termina su mandato.
La semana pasada el presidente venezolano
Hugo Chávez anunció que
su país abandonaba la CAN, bloque al que consideró "muerto" tras
los Acuerdos de Libre Comercio de Estados Unidos con algunos de
los cinco miembros del grupo, como Colombia y Perú.
Posteriormente, les planteó tanto a Bogotá como
a Lima reconsiderar sus TLC para que Venezuela no se retire de
la CAN, creada en 1969 con el nombre de Pacto Andino.
Regina Vargo, ex subdirectora comercial
de Estados Unidos para el hemisferio occidental, dijo que Venezuela "es un país
soberano y puede decidir si quiere o no ser parte de la CAN".
Pero al ser consultada por la AP Vargo,
que dejó su puesto
en enero de este año, aclaró: "No entiendo el
problema que plantea el presidente Chávez porque no hay
nada en nuestro acuerdo que pueda requerir a Venezuela que reciba
productos de Estados Unidos".
Ante una audiencia de unas 40 personas,
principalmente empresarios, Juan Carlos Botero, director de la
oficina comercial de Colombia
en Washington, calificó como "desafortunado" al
anuncio de Chávez.
"Es desafortunado que el 22 de abril Venezuela haya anunciado
que se retirará de la CAN por la incompatibilidad del TLC
con el sistema de la comunidad andina ... hicimos todo lo que era
necesario hacer para que ambos sistemas fueran compatibles",
expresó Botero en inglés en la conferencia realizada
en un lujoso hotel de esta ciudad aledaña a Miami.
El funcionario colombiano indicó que el sistema andino
prevé la posibilidad de que alguno de sus miembros realice
negociaciones con otras partes siempre que se preserve el sistema
legal andino y se hagan consultas con sus socios, y "se cumplió totalmente
con esos procedimientos legales".
Al terminar la sesión, en un diálogo informal con
la prensa, Botero dijo que personalmente creía que la comunidad
andina no se terminará con la salida de Venezuela. "La
comunidad andina continúa", señaló en
español.
Ferreyros, en tanto, sostuvo que lo que
al gobierno peruano le interesa son los sectores más pobres "y el proyecto
venezolano no lleva a ayudar a los peruanos más pobres".
En cambio, señaló, "el TLC sí porque
nos da oportunidades" para atraer inversiones que generarán
exportaciones y empleos.
PERU REJECTS VENEZUELAN CALL TO KILL FTA WITH U.S.
FUENTE: THE PEOPLE’S DAILY
The Peruvian government said on Tuesday that it would not suspend
its free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, a condition
Venezuela put forward for reversing its decision to leave the regional
trade body, the Andean Community of Nations (CAN).
"No one can impose conditions on us, because every nation
has its own interests," Peru's Trade and Tourism Minister
Alfredo Ferrero said.
Having said last week that Venezuela was determined to leave CAN,
the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Monday that Venezuela
might consider remaining within CAN if Peru and Colombia revoked
their FTAs with Washington.
Chavez said the agreements had "mortally wounded" CAN,
a trade bloc that includes Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia and
Ecuador.
Bolivian President Evo Morales, an ally of Chavez, has also criticized
Peru and Colombia for signing FTAs with the United States.
Also on Tuesday, CAN said trade ministers from the bloc had cancelled
a meeting called for Wednesday to discuss the topic.
INTENSIFY THE FIGHT AGAINST INEQUALITY
FUENTE: FINANCIAL TIMES
Sir, We agree with Moises Naim ("Abandon the fight against
inequality", April 18) that good intentions on the equality
front have often led to waste, corruption, higher inequality, and,
perversely, greater poverty. However, we consider it premature
to abandon the fight against inequality.
First, as might be expected, more often than not, countries that
have managed to reduce inequality have also experienced reductions
in poverty: a 1 per cent decline in the Gini coefficient (a standard
measure of inequality) tends to be associated with a decline of
4 per cent in the number of individuals living on less than $1
per day. Second, growth is far more effective in reducing poverty
in countries with less inequality: the most unequal countries need
to grow twice as fast as the most equal to get the same impact.
Third, the mixed empirical evidence suggests that highly unequal
countries tend to grow more slowly than more equal ones.
In our view, these reasons justify intensifying,
not abandoning, the fight against inequality. Further, a recent
World Bank publication, "Poverty
Reduction and Growth: Virtuous and Vicious Circles", suggests
that inequality is perhaps not as stubbornly immune to direct government
interventions as Mr Naim suggests. In the early 20th century, the
US, UK, France and Spain showed Gini coefficients similar to what
we find at present in Latin America, above 0.5. However, over roughly
30-year periods, they fell to their present levels of around 0.35.
Further, these reductions in inequality appear to be partly the
result of government intervention. For example, the Gini of the
UK before taxes and transfers - including pensions - is above 0.5,
but after that it falls to about 0.35.
Whether income-distributing transfers of this magnitude and nature
are optimal from a growth point of view is debatable, as is their
political feasibility in low- and middle-income countries. But
what is clear is that they are the norm in Europe and the US and
are emphatically not in most developing countries. Thus, to Mr
Naim's good advice we would add that we need to re-examine how
the state may efficiently redistribute income and promote equality
of opportunities in a way that minimally hinders, or even promotes,
growth. Encouraging in this respect are recent initiatives such
as Bolsa Escola in Brazil, Familias en Accion in Colombia and Oportunidades
in Mexico that combine fiscal transfers to the poor with incentives
to build human capital. Not only do we think the world should develop
effective strategies to fight inequality but the success of these
policies offers hope that we can.
Humberto Lopez and William Maloney,
Economists,
World Bank,
Washington, DC 20433, US
*
COLOMBIAN GOV'T AND REBEL GROUP START THIRD ROUND OF TALKS
FUENTE: THE DENVER POST
By Agencia EFE
Antonio Garcia, left, and Francisco Galan, commanders of the insurgent
National Liberation Army of Colombia, at a hotel in Havana Tuesday
during a break in the third round of the exploratory talks with
the Colombian government that began last December with a view to
structuring a peace process. (Agencia efe)
Havana - The Colombian government and the National Liberation
Army (ELN) insurgent group began Tuesday in Havana the third round
of the exploratory talks that began last December with a view to
structuring a peace process.
The government delegation led by the high
commissioner for peace, Luis Carlos Restrepo and the Colombian
ambassador to Cuba, Julio
Londoño, met with ELN representatives Commander Antonio
Garcia, the rebels' military chief, and his spokesman, Francisco
Galan.
None of the delegates would make statements about the outcome
of their first contact, although Galan told reporters that the
third-round talks will be held behind closed doors until April
29.
The government and the ELN agreed that the goal of this encounter
would be to move ahead with the general design of the process and
the structuring of an agenda of topics that would have to be dealt
with in a possible peace dialogue.
On March
2 during the Colombian elections the ELN, the second most important
guerrilla group in the country, declared a truce for the first
time in almost 42 years of armed combat. On April 18, however,
Garcia said that this in no way signified that the rebels were
about to declare an end to hostilities or free their hostages.
The ELN, with some 5,000 fighters, is Colombia's second-largest
guerrilla group and has been waging a four-decade-old revolution
against a succession of Colombian administrations. The biggest
insurgent group is the FARC, with an estimated 17,000 combatants.
KROLL NAMES DAVID VENN HEAD OF KIDNAP FOR RANSOM UNIT
FUENTE: FORBES
Kroll Inc., the world's leading risk consulting
company, today announced the appointment of David Venn as head
of its Kidnap for
Ransom (K&R) response services. The appointment coincides with
the renewal of Kroll's contract with St Paul Travelers at Lloyd's
of London as their exclusive security provider.
Venn, a 30-year veteran of the British Army, retiring as a Brigadier,
joins Kroll from Control Risks Group where, from 1991 to 1995,
he was General Manager of Response Services and subsequently Senior
Consultant International Crisis Management. He has over 15 years'
experience as a security and extortion advisor and trainer to corporations,
governments and families in countries including Angola, Afghanistan,
Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico and the Philippines.
"David is an international expert in successfully resolving
K&R situations and in developing and implementing customized
corporate and individual training programs. He is widely recognized
for his work advising organizations and their staff on how to identify
potential dangers and in teaching them critical avoidance techniques," said
Razz Hayde, head of crisis response for Kroll's Security Group. "We
are delighted to have David on our team and leading this integral
part of our security offering."
Based in London, Kroll's Kidnap for Ransom
unit operates a permanently manned crisis center which monitors
the international environment
for potential threats and provides 24/7 crisis response assistance
including evacuation, repatriation and emergency medical support.
K&R services cover pre-incident training, management of the
negotiation process, and post-incident support including victim
repatriation, trauma counseling, and recommendations on new security
measures.
About Kroll
Kroll Inc., the world's leading risk consulting
company, provides a broad range of investigative, intelligence,
financial, security
and technology services to help clients reduce risks, solve problems
and capitalize on opportunities. Headquartered in New York with
offices in more than 65 cities in over 25 countries, Kroll has
a multidisciplinary corps of more than 3,900 employees and serves
a global clientele of law firms, financial institutions, corporations,
non-profit institutions, government agencies, and individuals.
It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc., the global professional services firm. For more information,
please visit: www.krollworldwide.com.
SCIENTISTS TAKE CUE FROM NOAH AS KILLER FUNGUS THREATENS AMPHIBIANS
FUENTE: CHICAGO TRIBUNE
By John Biemer
Tribune staff reporter
A devastating fungus is sweeping the world,
wiping out entire populations of amphibians at such a rate that
Brookfield Zoo biologists
are helping pull together a massive "Noah's Ark" project
to capture frogs, toads and salamanders and put them in safe places.
A variety of factors already have combined
to cause more than 120 amphibian species to vanish since 1980,
in what one biologist
has called "one of the largest extinction spasms for vertebrates
in history."
A third of the world's nearly 6,000 amphibian species are threatened--their
populations weak and susceptible to disease. If they go, ecosystems
will tilt out of balance and potential medical breakthroughs--such
as potent painkillers or HIV inhibitors--could be lost.
It is hard to determine how many species have been affected by
the fungus because they cannot be assessed fast enough, but it
has factored into most of the recent extinctions and declines,
said Bob Lacy, the zoo's population geneticist and chairman of
the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group.
That leaves no time for anything but a
triage attempt to get some of the animals out of harm's way until
this "tragically unique" disease
can be further studied and countered, he said.
"It is a race against time, and it's a matter of months," Lacy
said.
Among zoologists, some have begun to face questions of which species
should be saved and why.
"It's terrible, I've never experienced anything like this," said
David Wake, a biology professor and curator of herpetology at the
University of California at Berkeley, the first scientist to officially
declare a pattern of global amphibian declines in 1989. "It's
really an awful prospect."
Disease takes hold
When this fungal disease came along, amphibians the world over
already faced significant stress from global warming, pesticides
and herbicides, acid rain and habitat destruction, experts said.
Some scientists point to them as bellwether animals for the Earth's
health. Their slippery, porous skin absorbs moisture around them,
making them more vulnerable to environmental changes than mammals,
birds and reptiles with their fur, feathers or scales.
But chytridomycosis, caused by the chytrid fungus, is adding a
confounding new level of peril that is pushing many species over
the brink--even in areas mostly untouched by human hands.
"This is a totally unusual conservation dilemma--species
going extinct in a relatively pristine environment," said
Alejandro Grajal, Brookfield Zoo's senior vice president of conservation,
education and training. "Now we're basically trying to save
as many as we can as we try to figure out our next step."
Chytridomycosis was first identified in
1998 and is not well understood. As it moves around the globe,
it has caused massive amphibian die-offs
in Australia and hit the population of boreal toads in the Rocky
Mountains. In the Sierra Nevadas, California-Berkeley researcher
Vance Vredenburg found "piles" of mountain yellow-legged
frogs dead from the disease two years ago.
The disease is filtering down Central America--one of the most
biologically diverse areas on the planet--at a rate of about 17
miles a year, faster than a frog can hop to the next pond. With
support from the Houston Zoo, Mauricio Caballero is leading an
effort to build a field facility in Panama to preserve species,
but the fungus caught up to his El Valle region before the roof
was up.
"We knew what was going to happen, and now we're seeing the
frogs starting to die," he said after a meeting with other
Latin American experts Monday in Brookfield. "We weren't expecting
it to hit so soon. We were predicting it was going to hit in the
rainy season."
Scientists race against time
Now scientists are scurrying to collect frogs and put them in
temporary tanks in hotel rooms and people's houses until the building's
ready, Caballero said. Plans to save 65 species have been downscaled
to the dozen or so most endangered--including the beautiful, iridescent
Panamanian golden frog. The species is a cultural icon for its
people as the bald eagle is for Americans--it's been depicted in
jewelry since pre-Columbian times and is the inspiration of local
festivals.
The Brookfield Zoo does not have the proper buildings to warehouse
amphibians. So zoo experts there are providing training for researchers
in the field, grant money and helping connect experts like those
visiting this week from Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia and Panama to
ensure that the species are collected as quickly and efficiently
as possible. Zoos that do have the capacity to take more amphibians
need to do so, too, Lacy said.
Chytrid fungus is carried in water, but the disease is specific
to amphibians, invisibly feeding on their skin's keratin and causing
it to thicken. The exact mode of death is unknown--it may produce
a toxin or it may impair the amphibian's ability to breathe and
absorb water through its skin.
How it got around the world so swiftly is also not understood.
It could have been carried by human travel--or by the global movement
of ballast water and invasive species. Vredenburg says one hypothesis
is the fungus always was around--but now amphibians are vulnerable
to it, like humans suddenly dying of the common cold. One theory
Grajal cited is it got around with African clawed frogs, which
were shipped around the world in the 1940s and 1950s for use as
pregnancy tests after it was discovered that a female injected
with the urine of a pregnant woman began laying eggs.
Reasons for hope
There is some good news about the disease--besides the fact that
it does not affect humans. Among some amphibian species it seems
to kill only some individuals. Although scientists do not know
how to stop the disease in nature, they can treat it in labs. And,
so far, it is not believed to have reached areas of great amphibian
diversity such as Madagascar, India and Indonesia.
There could be even more at stake with all these dying frogs than
their key roles in the food chain consuming insects and other small
critters. Scientists say amphibians have great, largely untapped
medical potential.
Last October, the Journal of Virology published a Vanderbilt University
Medical Center study showing that compounds secreted by an Australian
red eye tree frog's skin appear to inhibit HIV infection. Poison
dart frogs long have provided venom used by hunters in Central
and South America, but pharmaceutical companies are researching
a compound found in the frogs that could yield a painkiller 200
times more potent than morphine.
The total cost of holding 600 species captive to protect them
will run about $60 million, Grajal estimated--a relative bargain
compared to the costs of saving large animals like elephants or
pandas.
"The very preliminary analysis we've done shows there's an
incredible potential for medicines, and just because of that it's
worth the effort," he said. |
