Three outcomes of the problem of institutionalizing hemispheric free trade seem possible: (1) a U.S.-centered series of multilateral and bilateral free trade areas in which only the United States enjoys truly hemispheric free trade; (2) a set of integrated subregional free trade agreements, emanating from the North American Free Trade Area if it is completed; or (3) a hemispherewide system coordinated by inter-American agencies—its realization, if it is to be, is a long way away.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
“Message to the Congress Transmitting the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act of 1991, February 26, 1991,”Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 4 Mar. 1991, 77:217-219.
2.
2. Institute for European-Latin American Relations, Towards a North American Trade Bloc? The NAFTA, Latin America and Europe, Dossier no. 35, Dec. 1991, pp. 32-33.
3.
3. Myles Frechette, “U.S. Trade Policy, Latin America, and the Uruguay Round” (USIA Foreign Press Center, 19 Dec. 1991); Federal Information Systems Corporation, Federal News Service, 1991.
4.
Institute for European-Latin American Relations , Towards a North American Trade Bloc? pp. 1-3, 35.
5.
idem , “Latin American Regional Organizations,”The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Updating information is based on Foreign Broadcast Information Service, FBIS Daily Report—Latin America, FBIS-LAT-92-009, 14 Jan. 1992, p. 5; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-011, 16 Jan. 1992, pp. 1-2; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-013, 21 Jan. 1992, pp. 53, 57; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-021, 31 Jan. 1992, pp. 1-3, 32-33; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-022, 3 Feb. 1992, pp. 1-3, 7-8, 32; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-023, 4 Feb. 1992, pp. 36-37; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-024, 5 Feb. 1992, p. 2; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-026, 7 Feb. 1992, pp. 4-5; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-027, 10 Feb. 1992, pp. 11-12; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-030, 13 Feb. 1992, pp. 1-2; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-034, 20 Feb. 1992, pp. 8-9; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-037, 25 Feb. 1992, pp. 2-3; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-038, 26 Feb. 1992, pp. 28-29; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-041, 2 Mar. 1992, p. 2; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-047, 10 Mar. 1992, p. 2; ibid., FBIS-LAT-92-050, 13 Mar. 1992, p. 2.
6.
6. Sidney Weintraub, “The New U.S. Economic Initiative toward Latin America,”Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 33:13 (Spring 1991).
7.
7. Ibid., pp. 13-15.
8.
8. Sistema Económico Latinoamericano (SELA), Secretaría Permanente, “La iniciativa Bush para las Américas: Análisis preliminar,”Nueva sociedad, 111:63-79 (Feb. 1991). Established in 1975, SELA is made up of 26 member states from Latin America and the Caribbean; among its original purposes was to urge economic integration in the region.
9.
9. Institute for European-Latin American Relations, Towards a North American Trade Bloc? pp. 24, 25.
10.
10. SELA, “Iniciativa Bush para las Américas,” pp. 76-79.
11.
11. Richard Feinberg, formerly executive vice president of the Overseas Development Council and new president of the Inter-American Dialogue, advocated creation of a new organization separate from existing inter-American agencies—an Americas Commission to provide a forum for hemispherewide negotiations. Feinberg took a disdainful view of existing institutions, emphasizing their politicization, patronage, and bureaucratic shortcomings, yet he proposed to incorporate them in an advisory capacity in order to take advantage of their areas of competence. Richard E. Feinberg and Peter Hakim, New Directions in U.S.-Latin American Economic Relations (Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council and Inter-American Dialogue, Mar. 1991).
12.
12. U.S., Department of State, “Enterprise for the Americas Initiative.”
13.
13. I base this comment on discussions with officials in the U.S. government and inter-American organizations.
