MIAMI (Reuters) - U.S. trade officials insisted on Wednesday that a comprehensive all-Americas free trade agreement was still possible by January 2005, despite widely held views they had jeopardized that goal by giving in to Brazil.
"I don't accept the presumption that what we've negotiated is an FTAA-lite," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick told a forum of U.S. and Latin American business groups.
The Bush administration has pushed for a comprehensive Free Trade Area of the Americas pact requiring the 34 countries participating in the talks to make deep commitments in nine separate negotiating areas.
However, that goal has been put to the test in recent months because of Brazil's refusal to negotiate in certain priority areas for U.S. business, such as protection of copyrights and patents, foreign direct investment rules, transparency in government procurement, and services.
A draft declaration crafted in the past several days by deputy trade ministers resolves that issue by requiring all countries to agree on a common set of commitments in each of the nine negotiating areas, while allowing a second set of talks for some countries to negotiate deeper commitments.
Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said the two-track approach provides the flexibility needed for Brazil and other Mercosur members Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay to proceed with the FTAA pact.
"It doesn't impose a one-size suit on all countries," Amorim said.
Trade ministers formally start two days of talks on Thursday. As at other major trade talks in recent years, parts of downtown Miami have been sealed off by authorities worried about violence among tens of thousands of anti-FTAA protesters who are expected in the city.
TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY FOR BRAZIL?
U.S. business groups and countries such as Canada, Mexico and Chile have been worried the declaration would give Brazil too much flexibility to opt out of portions of the agreement, such as services, investment, intellectual property and government procurement rules.
But Canadian Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew told reporters he was "not unsatisfied" with the draft because at least it requires Brazil to negotiate in all nine areas.
"We have moved the process to the point where today these things are still part of the picture," Pettigrew said.
A U.S. official, speaking on the condition he not be identified, said the draft plan allowed the United States to push for a deep level of basic commitments that - in the end - should be enough to satisfy the demands of U.S. business groups and members of Congress who must approve any deal.
Frank Vargo, vice president of international affairs for the National Association of Manufacturers, said his business group had concerns about the two-track approach, but would work within that structure to get the best agreement it can.
"If the best route isn't available, then you have to take whatever alternative route is available, even if that route has pot holes" and means the January 2005 deadline for finishing the pact might not be met, Vargo said.
David Waskow, trade policy analyst for the Friends of the Earth and a critic of the FTAA, said the United States had been forced to scale back its ambitions to avoid a high-profile collapse at this week's meeting.
"It's pretty clearly a rebuff to the U.S. position going in. I think it means the agreement ultimately will be a hollow shell," Waskow said.
A Washington think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in a study published this week that the North American Free Trade Agreement could serve as a warning to Latin American countries not to hinge their futures on trade agreements with the United States.
It said NAFTA had failed to spur job growth in Mexico and thousands of rural Mexicans have suffered. (Additional reporting by Kristin Roberts and Jim Loney)
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.