コロンビアのアーネスト・コップペル氏（テキサスＡ＆Ｍ大学ＣＯＥプログラムの共同メンバー）から、最近発表されたWall Street Journalの記事を転送していただいた。米国の反自由貿易論に関するコラム記事である。
先の米国中間選挙で明らかになった「民主党の勝利」が周辺国に及ぼす影響について、南米諸国の状況がいかに深刻であることが記されている。読み方はさまざまであろう。日本人にはその深刻度がにわかには理解できないかもしれない。
一方的な米国経済への依存体質から脱却した日本は、中南米の状況を「対岸の火事」と考えるかもしれない。しかし、日本もかつて同じ状況に置かれた時期もあった。いまは米国が風邪を引いても、マスコミが騒ぐほど、かつてのように日本経済はそれほど不安な状態にあるわけではない。
他方で、米国の消費市場をメインターゲットにしている中南米諸国経済への打撃は、思いの外大きいのである。わが国の隣国、中国・韓国・タイ・台湾などへの波及効果もありうる話ではある。以下の記事（手紙）を皆さんはどのように解釈するだろうか？
ーーーーーーーーーーーー
From: Ernesto V?lez Koppel
To: ******
Cc: ******
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 12:52 PM
Subject: FTA in Wall Street Journal 11/17/06
Dear Regina and Steve
Many thanks for you help and guidance during our FTA lobbying tour in Washington this week.
Below is an excellent editorial on that topic …… good to distribute among FTA opposers in DC who probably do not read the Wall St Journal. I am also copying it to the Director of El Tiempo, Colombia´s main newspaper and its correspondent, for comments or translation…….just in case you / he did not see it.
Regards
Ernesto
Don’t Close the Door on Free Trade in the Andes
By MARY ANASTASIA O’GRADY
The Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2006
Sometimes it seems that our elected representatives in Washington are not all that bright. Either that or they don’t always act with the best interests of the American people in mind.
Take the opposition on Capitol Hill to the pending free trade agreements between the U.S. and Peru and Colombia. The Bush administration has already signed the FTA with Peru and is expected to sign the Colombia FTA by the end of next week. But to be implemented, both pacts need to be ratified by the U.S. Congress. Right now, with the Democratic leadership opposed and some Republicans unwilling to back the president, that looks doubtful.
Just how the defeat of these two trade pacts is supposed to benefit American democracy, security or living standards is a riddle. The opposite is true: If a U.S. goal is to increase stability and prosperity abroad and to make the homefront safer and living standards higher for Americans, killing the U.S.-Peru deal is dumb. Knocking off the agreement with Colombia is even dumber.
Consider U.S. economic interests alone. Forget the fact that these two countries, with a combined population of more than 72 million people and per capita gross domestic products in 2003 of less than $2,200, would greatly benefit from more liberalized trade. Assume for a moment that Washington doesn’t give a hoot about Third World hardship. Even if all this is true, and American politicians are only interested in serving Americans, ratifying these two trade agreements is still the only rational thing to do.
The U.S. economy is already relatively open to both Peruvian and Colombian imports under the Andean Trade Preferences Act. Since 1991 both countries have enjoyed duty-free access to the U.S. market for the vast majority of their products.
Since 2002 the ATP has been tied to “cooperation” in the U.S. war on drugs, which has meant an increase in violence and instability in the region in a senseless effort to end the supply of coca coming from the Andes. So our Andean friends have certainly “paid” for their preferential access to the U.S. Yet under the ATP there is no quid pro quo for trade liberalization on the part of Peru or Colombia. If the two free trade agreements are not ratified, it is likely the ATP will be renewed in the interest of the drug war.
A better U.S. policy, for all sides, would be to keep the U.S. market open to Peruvian and Colombian goods but also to open those domestic markets to American goods. That’s what would happen under the FTAs. Under the U.S.-Peru agreement, 80% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Peru will be immediately duty-free once the deal is sealed and another 7% will become duty-free after five years. Nearly the entire economy will be open after 15 years. In the case of Colombia, 80% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products will be duty-free immediately and the rest of the duties will phase out over 10 years.
As it stands now, Peruvian and Colombian trade policies incorporate a “high level of protectionism,” according to the 2006 Heritage-The Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom. But both countries are already demonstrating an appetite for U.S. goods. U.S. exports to Peru, despite protectionism, are now more than $2 billion annually. In 2005, U.S. goods exports to Colombia were $5.4 billion. Inflation is low and the currencies stable in both countries and both boast young populations eager to become consumers in a globalized market. Access to this demographic is a U.S. exporter’s dream.
Retail consumers are not the only market for U.S. businesses. Thomas Gales, Caterpillar Tractor’s vice president for Latin America, has testified that Colombia and Peru are important destinations for his company’s heavy equipment. With the elimination of import tariffs on machinery made in Caterpillar’s East Peoria and Decatur, Illinois plants, he says Cat’s competitiveness in the region will be further enhanced.
The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that when the deal is fully implemented, exports to Peru (a market half the size of Colombia) could grow by $700 million annually. Both agreements also liberalize the service sectors.
If these export opportunities are not convincing enough, consider the risks to U.S. competitiveness of nixing the deals. If the U.S. doesn’t negotiate free trade in these markets, the European Union, Japan and the rest of Latin America probably will.
For those who care about Latin American poverty, there are even better reasons to ratify the free-trade pacts. The most immediate beneficiaries of more trade with the U.S. will be the consumers in Peru and Colombia who will have more choice and better prices. Countries that open experience improvement in their export accounts, as access to inputs helps local producers improve competitiveness.
None of this matters to Big Labor, of course, which is out to kill both deals. Democrats on the hook to unions for the party’s Election Day victory have already memorized Labor’s script: Trade with Peru and Colombia cannot be allowed because those countries don’t protect worker rights. Never mind that both have signed on to all International Labor Organization conventions.
Andr?s Mej?a-Vergnaud, of the Freedom and Progress Institute in Bogot?, points out that in the case of Colombia, opponents to the FTA are arguing against ratification because union leaders have been murdered. “But it’s hard to see the connection between the killing of union leaders and the trade agreement,” he says. “Remember that not only union leaders have been killed in Colombia: journalists, judges, business leaders, politicians, etc., all of us have been in danger here. It has to do with a generalized state of violence that the country has been going through, and has nothing to do with free trade. The crisis of unions in Colombia is also related to corruption and rapacity in public unionism. No wonder union leaders were once known here as the ‘blue-collar oligarchy.'”
Colombia is not the only place where a Big Labor oligarchy has been known to call the shots for the rest of us. The Democratic-led Congress taking over in January is likely to experience a similar tyranny. That means that the only hope now for a step forward in U.S.-Latin American trade relations lies with Republicans, who would be wise to pass these FTAs before they leave the majority in December.
