Flowers for Harleys: The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Comes into Effect

Written for The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs and the Global Ethics Network.

Five years after its proposal, the trade agreement between the United States and Colombia came into force on May 15 with the export of Colombian flowers to the United States and an expected shipment of Harley-Davidson motorcycles to Colombia. It was a topic of contention at the 2012 Summit of the Americas that took place in the Colombian city of Cartagena: Will the free trade agreement fulfill the mutual benefits that boosters prophesy?

Proposed during the Bush administration, the free trade agreement (FTA) has been down a slow and winding road. With political divisions between Colombian President Juan Santos and his predecessor Alvaro Uribe, and the recent prostitution scandal that took place at the summit, the announcement that the agreement had finally come into force is a positive step for the Colombian government.

The recent shift, too, towards protectionism within Latin American countries such as Brazil and Argentina further places positive emphasis on the announcement of the trade agreement. According to The Economist, fears of Asian competition have led countries in Latin America to turn away from agreements and Mercosur relationships suggesting that free trade with the United States will benefit Colombia at a time when trade relationships elsewhere are facing pressure.

The agreement has, however, faced much criticism. The BBC reported that U.S. labor groups fear the agreement will lead to job losses at a time when workers can least afford it whilst Colombian Trade Unions fear Colombia is not yet developed enough to withstand such competition. Only seven months ago Colombian agriculture minister Juan Camilo Restrepo discussed the need to prepare small businesses and producers so that “when the cold shower of the FTA hits them, it doesn’t turn into pneumonia”. Is Colombia ready to open its doors to the United States?

TripleCrisis’s Kevin Gallagher suggests not. Arguing that Colombia will have to work twice as hard as the United States to benefit at all from the FTA, Gallagher uses the findings of the 2007 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean to predict losses for Colombia in areas of “textiles, apparel, food, and heavy manufacturing industries, outweighing the gains from increased petroleum, mining, and other exports to the United States.”

The Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and the United States is presented as an opportunity for increased foreign investment in Colombia; whether or not the agreement will actually benefit Colombia in the way that it hopes still remains to be seen.

Further Reading:
“United States Must Redefine Fair Trade” Devin Stewart

“Drop the Free-Trade Blinders” Dani Rodrik

“Pragmatic Overdose: Ethics and creativity are stifled in the draft... Evan O’Neil

“A Human Rights Argument For The Colombia Free Trade Agreement” Susan Rice

“Marrying Trade and Human Rights” Susan Aaronson

“Local Produce Vs Global Trade” Adam Dean, Policy Innovations

U.S. Pledge to Afghanistan: National Security and Aid

The United States has pledged to support Afghanistan for ten years after the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel in 2014. The announcement of this partnership raises interesting questions about the nature of nation-building and aid, as well as U.S. interests in the state and region. While the partnership sends a message to the Afghan people that the West will not abandon them, it also sends a warning to the Taliban and neighboring states that a Western departure will not be an opportunity for them.

The announcement is timely given the recent controversies that have marred America's relationship with Afghanistan—the burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers, the recent release of photographs showing soldiers posing with Afghan bodies, and the murderous rampage of Staff Sergeant Robert Bales. The announcement of continued American support signifies an attempt to assuage such tensions while making a graceful exit, but is a long-term influx of American aid what is needed in Afghanistan?

Writing in the Guardian in November 2011, Bill Easterly warns of the American tendency to use development initiatives as opportunities to strengthen defense. Easterly suggests that the American habit of providing aid to war-torn and fragile states in the interest of national security is "misguided." Instead the focus should be on "areas with a better track record—health, education, infrastructure, and clean water and sanitation—operating in societies where war, repression and corruption do not make it pointless for aid to operate."

Perhaps a more potent question that rises from the American pledge is: Will it even work? Speaking at Carnegie Council in 2011, Francis Fukuyama discussed the problems that arise when outside influences attempt to help a nation rebuild itself: "I don't think we realize how difficult it is, how many resources it takes, and how long a process it is." Economist Dambisa Moyo is more specific in her criticism of outside influence, stating that the problem with aid is that citizens cannot hold their governments fully accountable as the agendas of aid donors often influence any decision made. In the case of Afghanistan, will the American partnership hinder government with hidden agendas or will Afghanistan benefit from the protection of the U.S from potential threats?

Further Reading:

"The Ethics of Exit from Afghanistan" Carnegie New Leaders Program: Katherine Brown, Robert Diamond, David C. Speedie

"Troops in Afghanistan and Fighting Foreign Wars" Global Ethics Corner

"Symposium: The Ethics of America's Afghan War." Carnegie Council

"A Look at Current U.S. Security Issues". Jeffery D. McCausland, Phillip McCausland

"Building Peace and Civil Society in Afghanistan: Challenges and Opportunities." Ana Cutter

"International Aid: Does Help Hurt?" Global Ethics Corner

"Between men and women there is no friendship possible."

Oscar Wilde claimed "Between men and women there is no friendship possible. There is passion, enmity, worship, love, but no friendship." This is a wide generalisation and, as one could suspect, a comment meant to enthral his audience but perhaps Wilde was right on the mark in regard to friendship between former lovers.

Past experience has taught me that any break up is traumatic and damaging to at least one of the parties involved. What was once a connection that brings two people together can prevent any friendship from forming. Many have said that they have remained friends with old flames, but I wonder how truthful that really is. Can you remain friends with the person you have spilled your darkest secrets with? Your darkest thoughts?

CNN's Ami Angelowicz argues friendships can be maintained with exes in six simple steps. Can the human heart or mind really be diluted to six simple steps? I'm inclined to say no. Not for no reason have songs been written about the loss of a lover and the friendship that accompanies it.

I'm not saying that losing a friendship when you lose a lover is always a bad thing - in most cases it is a very good thing. I've always doubted the view held that you can get over a love and transform a relationship into a platonic one. Love is all those things listed in Wilde's declaration of relations between men and women - friendship could not compete with such memories creating complications and heart ache for all involved.

So perhaps Oscar should amend his exclamation of the relationships between men and women and say "Between old lovers there is no friendship possible."

Hollande and Europe: A change of direction or just a new face?

Written for the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs and The Global Ethics Network.

The victory of anti-austerity Socialist leader François Hollande in the French presidential election has sparked discussion about the future of European economic policy. Winning 51.62 percent of the vote, Hollande's campaign was founded on the promise to introduce "a new direction to Europe," with a focus on growth and investment, in lieu of the austerity policies of outgoing French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, which Europe followed in recent months to no apparent avail. Does his victory on these issues mark an end to austerity measures and an ideological shift across Europe?

Benedict Brogan of The Telegraph suggests that it does. He argues that the French election "gives the left in Britain a script to follow about an unpopular government detached from the people by wealth and austerity." Brogan indicates that the French election could prove problematic for Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron, who has championed austerity measures in the past.

Although Jeff Sica of Sica Wealth Management asserts that the rise of Hollande marks the death knell for the French-German rapprochement seen under Sarkozy, on Monday German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke of austerity measures "plus growth"—a nod toward Hollande's desire to focus on investment. Sigmar Gabriel, leader of the Social Democrats in Germany, stated Monday that the Socialist victory will "not only change France, but finally help Europe go in another direction." Facing criticism in Germany for her tough austerity measures, Merkel may be forced to soften fiscal policies.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has his doubts. He is pessimistic about an ideological shift in Europe, arguing that France's election is just a case of those on the outside benefiting from "the fact that they aren't in, and the economy stinks."

Perhaps a changing of the guards can only ever have minimal impact in the context of an economic crisis. As Jerome Roos of online magazine Roar succinctly puts it, "If the events of the past three years have taught us anything, it is that politicians do not rule Europe—financial markets do."

Whether or not the election of François Hollande will dramatically change the political landscape of Europe remains to be seen. However, his victory has raised questions about the success of austerity, and it opens the conversation to a diverse range of economic policies.

Further Reading:
Global Ethics Corner: Goodbye Euro?

Top Risks and Ethical Decisions 2011, with Daniel Altman, Ian Bremmer, Zachary Karabell, Art Kleiner, and Joel H. Rosenthal

"The European Union: Still a Global Power?" Zornista Stoyanova-Yerburgh, Carnegie Ethics Online.

"Euroland Crucified Upon Its Own Cross of Gold," Thomas Palley, Policy Innovations.

"The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth," Benjamin Friedman, Carnegie Council Public Affairs

Global Ethics Corner: The Debt Crisis: Are Politicians the Problem?