Guest Chapter By
Guest chapter by chapter, Chapter 2 on national treatment and market access of goods to be seriously damaging to Colombian agricultural sector that annual production would fall 13 in corn, sorghum 27 , 23 in soybean, 15 in beans and 23 in wheat. The planted area, employment and labor income for each year of the Treaty would be lower than those to be presented in its absence in 14 in maize, sorghum 25 , 24 in soybeans, 8 in beans and 44 in wheat. In the more conservative scenario in which the average income is reduced by 30 , production of poultry meat would be lower by 34 to that presented in the absence of the FTA, with similar reductions in employment and income labor.It lost 200,598 hectares in the near term and 30,695 jobs man / year, and would be more serious negative impact on peasant agricultural economy. Only there could be benefits to producers of snuff, ethanol and biodiesel, while the producers of meat, fruits and vegetables depend on the willingness of the United States to remove restrictions SPS which is in Chapter 6. In chapter 10 on investment “is given special treatment to foreign investments, placed at a disadvantage to domestic investors and strengthening the control of the economy by the U.S. capital, with the complacency of the government of lvaro Uribe V lez , which seeks to amend the current legislation to give greater privileges to foreign capital. Such clauses also occurs in the NAFTA, under the assumption of reciprocity, giving rise to all sorts of demands ending injuring the interests of the weaker party, in this case Mexico.Nevertheless, in recent years governments have been unilaterally dismantling controls on foreign investment, which has caused a flood of new capital, resulting in the privatization of large state enterprises and the denationalization of private companies, once the badges, such as Bavaria, Coltabaco, etc.. So the FTA with the U.S. lreforzar a further this trend. ” relating to chapter 11 on trade in services:” The United States ranks first in world trade in commercial services. Under these conditions, the U.S. benefits are overwhelming, especially as it relates to new information and communication technologies, financial services, professional services, among others.By giving equal treatment to service suppliers of U.S. nationals, Colombia is placed at a distinct disadvantage. ” on the competition chapter 13: Lack of competitive strength of Colombia: The domestic production could not withstand the competition of subsidized farm products from the U.S. government ( “Competitiveness almost zero” ).The U.S. companies’ access to the Colombian public sector procurement, “U.S. firms are generally much higher than those in Colombia and are generally able to generate large economies of scale, which in an open tender, hardly they could compete on price and quality in many cases. ” On the subject of Chapter 14, telecommunications, arose multiple reservations on issues such as the use of networks by private international calling traffic and providing border service, among others, which could lead to problems such as EPM Colombian companies, Empresa de Telecomunicaciones de Bogota and Telef nica Telecom. The subject of Chapter 16, the IP is probably “one of the most sensitive of the treaty, since it has always been the looting of ancient knowledge and biogenetic resources has been a constant in relations between the two countries.At the same time, the commitment by Colombia, to adhere to all existing international agreements on the subject, placed at a disadvantage to the country, for in the future will have to recognize all the rights related to scientific and technological knowledge, As we know, are concentrated in a high percentage in the U.S.. Similarly, by giving the other party a national treatment no less favorable than that accorded to its own nationals, as regards the protection and enjoyment of such rights, Colombia loses for the same reason stated above. In practice, this means the displacement of the little that exists in research and technological development by the knowledge centers located in the U.S., who control the patents. Needless to emphasize that with or without the treaty, control science and technology, as well as the ideological stranglehold on higher education in the U.S. by the U.S. partner is indisputable.