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?

Cuba and Drugs Dominate the Sixth Summit of the Americas

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

http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/cuba-and-drugs-dominate-the-sixth-summit-of-the-americas

The sixth Summit of the Americas took place in Cartagena, Colombia on April 14–15 and raised some interesting questions about the future of U.S. policies in the region.

Global drug policy appeared to dominate center stage as the American "war on drugs" was criticized for its lack of evident success. Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina encouraged the introduction of global drug market regulation, while Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla advocated for legalization, and Mexican leader Felipe Calderon placed the onus on the United States to reduce demand.

Although a joint declaration was not produced at the summit, Markus Schultze-Kraft of the IDS Governance and Development blog commented that the 2012 summit was perhaps more fruitful than previous iterations: "Never before did a group of Latin American heads of state challenge the prevailing, US-backed drug policy orthodoxy with such solid arguments, political acumen and determination to find alternatives." This challenge to U.S. policy suggests a growing confidence to question American decisions in the region.

For example, U.S. policy toward Cuba and the country's exclusion from the Summit of the Americas also met resistance from the Latin American leaders. Calling the U.S. attitude toward Cuba a remnant of the Cold War, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said, "Hopefully within three years we will have Cuba as part of the summit."

With a more assertive South America can the United States afford to ostracize Cuba? John McAuliff of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development suggests not: "Bottom line, the Administration could have used the Summit to increase US stature by showing we have finally moved beyond the Cold War… instead we are at best going to stay even."

In March 2012, the Economist reported that Cuba is transitioning to a more capitalist system, and that Raul's successor will face growing pressure to respond to socioeconomic problems from a pragmatic perspective rather than a revolutionary one. Will Cuba be included in the next summit as Santos and other Latin American heads of states demand? With a growing and confident Latin America, the 2012 summit at least opened the debate.

Further Reading:

"A Moral Argument against the War on Drugs,"Julian Savulescu, Bennett Foddy, Practical Ethics.
"Globalization and the Financial Crises in Latin America,"Roberto Frenkel.
"Democratic Dilemmas in the U.S War on Drugs In Latin America (Case... Eva Bertram, Bill Spencer.
"The Cuba Wars: Fidel Castro, the United States, and the Next Revol...
"Digital Rations: Internet Policy in Castro's Cuba," Ellery Roberts Biddle, Policy Innovations.
"U.S Free Trade Agreement Won't Benefit Colombia,"Kevin Gallagher, Triple Crisis

Selection Versus Election: A Wasted Opportunity at the World Bank?

Here is an article I worte for the Carnegie Council: http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/selection-versus-election-a-wasted-opportunity-at-the-world-bank

The announcement on April 16 that U.S.-backed Jim Yong Kim had been named president of the World Bank came as no surprise to the world as it repeated the decades-old pattern of an American holding the office. The selection process raises important questions that the World Bank needs to address.
Democracy in the twenty-first century dictates that institutions should be transparent and fair. Of course, the parameters that constitute "fair" can fluctuate from context to context, but the sense is that public office should be awarded to the most qualified candidate following a period of open competition and debate on the priority issues.

As Bill Easterly points out in the Guardian, Jim Yong Kim was not made to participate in open debate with his fellow nominees—Jose Antonio Ocampo of Colombia and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria—and as such failed to address the major questions regarding development policy at the World Bank. The haste with which the selection process took place—a mere three weeks—led critics such as Easterly and The Atlantic's Clive Crook to ask: Why such a rush?

In a video interview endorsing Ocampo, Kevin Gallagher of Boston University spoke of the World Bank's fundamental need to reform if it wanted to "play a leading role in the twenty-first century." Nancy Birdsall of the Center for Global Development also discussed the institution's need for innovation. "The World Bank needs to shift … to a culture of trying, failing, adjusting and trying again," she wrote on the CGD blog.
The inclusion of developing-world nominees such as Ocampo and Okonjo-Iweala presented an opportunity to initiate a much needed conversation on incorporating developing-country perspectives. With such evident need for reform, was this choice a wasted opportunity? Should Kim have participated in open debate? Can the World Bank maintain its relevance amid accusations that it is no longer representative of the international dynamic?

For criticisms of Kim's candidacy, see Lant Pritchett and Patrick Bond. For the realpolitik perspective, see Daniel W. Drezner in Foreign Policy. The Guardian has also rounded up a handful of recommendations for Kim's first year.

Further Reading:
"Do World Bank Classifications Hurt The Poor?" Seth Kaplan, Policy Innovations
"What Should Bretton Woods II Look Like?" Jose Antonio Ocampo, Project Syndicate
"Redesigning Global Economic Governance," Barry Herman, Policy Innovations
"An Intergovernmental Panel on Systemic Economic Risk," Kevin Gallagher, TripleCrisis
"Thomas Pogge on Global Poverty," Thomas Pogge, Keane Bhatt, Truthout
ETHICS MATTER: A Conversation with William Easterly, William Easterly, Devin Stewart, Carnegie Council

IR News Brief

I worte this last week as an experiement for the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. We've decided to do a more ethics based weekly post but it seems a shame to completely ignore the work I did so here it is:

Monday 9^th April.

Syria: Set backs for peace talks and cease fire with run in with Turkey.

A United Nations led cease fire talk with Syria scheduled to take place Tuesday this week was surrounded by controversy when a shooting took place near a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey. With a reported two dead and three injured, Turkish officials accused Syria of opening fire across the border between the two countries. Reported by the BBC, The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that the cross – border incident occurred when a clash between opposition fighters and Syrian troops at Salomeh escalated.

Kofi Annan had planned to fly in on Tuesday and discuss the possibility of a ceasefire in Syria according to New York Times journalists Sebnem Arsu and Alan Campbell. The agreement had been that Syrian government officials would withdraw forces by April 10^th. With an estimated 9, 000 people killed since the uprising began last year, this incident shows that the violence shows no evidence of stopping any time soon.

Find more: International Intervention, Salvaging Peace, and The Use of Internet.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff Visits The White House.

Dilma Rouseff, the first female president of Brazil, made her first official visit to the United States this week. Building on Obama’s visit to Brazil last year, the talks centered on boosting trade ties between the two countries and the international standing of Brazil in today’s political climate. Brazil has spoken before of their desire to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

According to Business Week’s Hans Nichols, Obama is looking to secure greater business opportunities that will help U.S businesses profit from Brazilian oil whilst Roussef is looking to gain better access to U.S markets.

Brazil has recently unveiled a program to send approximately 100, 000 students overseas to study. According to the BBC, the United States will receive a large amount of these students in the coming years. Both Rousseff and Obama have spoken of the mutual benefits created by greater economic, financial and commercial cooperation and future cooperation between the two states looks likely.

Find more: IBASE, China and Latin America, and Brazil and Elections. 

Tuesday 10^th April.

European Court Rule In Favor Of Extradition Of Terror Suspects To U.S

Suspected terrorists Abu Hamza, Babar Ahmed, Syed Talha Ahson, Adel Abdel Barry and Khaled al – Fawwz are due to be extradited from the United Kingdom to the United States following a ruling that was announced Tuesday by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The suspects had taken the issue to the

European Court

after objecting to the conditions they would face at the ADX Florence ‘Supermax’ prison in Colorado reported New York Times’ Alan Cowell and John F Burns. Abu Hamza al Masri had been arrested in 2006 for inciting hatred at his mosque in Finsbury but now faces up to 50 years in the US prison. According to The Guardian’s Vikram Dodd, U.S officials had to provide written assurances that Hamza would not face the death penalty or a sentence at Guantanamo Bay.

Although the suspects will not be extradited until all procedures, including a possible appeal, have been finalized, the Courts decision is an important step for the treatment of suspected terrorists. BBC reporter Domini Caciani argues that with the European Court ruling that U.S jail conditions do not violate a suspect’s human rights, extraditions of suspected terrorists from the UK to the US has been made easier.

Read more: Ethics after 9/11, How extradition works, How should the US handle terrorists?

Jose Antonio Ocampo speaks to Moscow Times about the World Bank

Last week Jose Antonio Ocampo was nominated for presidency of the international organization, the World Bank. The first nomination from a developing country, this marks a significant turning point for the World Bank; for over 60 years the United States has chosen the candidate who would head the institution.

Speaking to the Moscow Times, Ocampo discussed the role of international institutions in development initiatives. Under Ocampo’s leadership it appears as if the World Bank would seek to expand the scope of human freedom on a country by country basis. According to Ocampo, “it is not the role of any international institution to impose a particular model of development on any country.”

Read more: World Bank Classifications, Accountability,

Wednesday 11^th April

Santorum Leaves GOP Race

Republican candidate Rick Santorum announced his decision to pull out of the campaign trail at a news conference in Gettysburg reported the BBC.

Considered to be the last remaining competitor against the apparent Republican favorite Mitt Romney, Santorum had won 11 primaries and caucuses before his decision to end his campaign. Santorum was quoted in the LA Times “While this presidential race is over for us, for me….we are not done fighting.” Whether Santorum now chooses to back Mitt Romney remains to be seen. Erik Eckholm of the New York Times reported that some evangelical leaders have already begun to rally behind Romney with The National Organization for Marriage endorsing him earlier today.

Read more: Primaries and Democracy, U.S Security Issues Candidates Face, The Role of Faith in Elections.

Kim Jong-Un declared ‘Supreme Leader’ of North Korea

In the first major political meeting in one and a half years, Supreme Commander of the North’s People’s Army and son of the late Kim Jong-Il, Kim Jong-Un, was named First Secretary of the Ruling Workers Party and ‘Supreme Leader’ of North Korea.

                       

Kim Jong – Un’s formal ascension is one of a series of events this week set up to mark the 100^th anniversary of the birth of his grandfather, Kim Il Sung according to Time magazine. Quoted in the New York Times, Chong Seong-Chang of the Sejong Institute in Seoul remarked that a significant factor in Kim Jong-Un’s rise to the top was his loyalty to his father and grandfather. Many of Kim Jung – Un advisors were handpicked by his father before his death four months ago.

Read more: Engage, Ignore or Confront?

Thursday 12^th April

Fragile cease-fire in Syria in place

A ceasefire originally planned for Tuesday 10^th April has today come into action in Syria. In a conference held by the UN Secretary General, the UN said it was now up to Syria to match words with actions but that the international community must act together to ensure violence does not again break out in the fragile state. The Council on Foreign Relations has reported that Annan has proposed a team of 250 UN personnel to help broker the ceasefire.

With varying reports on the atmosphere in Syria today, the reaction to the ceasefire was still unclear. According to the BBC, the Syrian National Council had claimed earlier on Thursday that “there was no evidence of a significant withdrawl”. Reports of a roadside bombing in Aleppo suggest that the ceasefire had met opposition yet New York Times reporters Neil MacFarquhar and Alan Cowell write that, although on state of high alert, activists had not reported any violence at the time.

Read more: Guide to Syria, Against coercion,

Oil disputes between Sudan and South Sudan

Salva Kiir, President of South Sudan, defied the United Nations and African Union on Thursday, saying he would not withdraw troops from the Heglig oilfield reported the BBC.

According to The New York Times, South Sudan declared independence last year and since then relatiosn have deteriorated – especially over oil disputes. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon spoke of the situation at a conference in Geneva on Thursday and warned against war between the two regions. According to CNN’s Jared Ferrie, a planned meeting between the two presidents later on this month has now been cancelled.

Read more: Would you declare war? , Promise and Perils, Looking at South Sudan.

Friday 13^th April

North Korea has sparked debate this week with the upcoming launch of the rocket Unha-3. The rocket, due to be launched any day according to The New York Times, coincides with the rise of Kim Jung-Un to mark the 100^th anniversary of the birth of the late King Il-sung.

The BBC report that opponents to the rocket launch argue that North Korea are acting against the UN resolutions put in place when a rocket was launched by the state in 2009.

Read more: Security, nuclear issues, nuclear ethics.