Talk:United States–Colombia Free Trade Agreement/Archives/2012

Untitled

This is one of the worst pages I've ever had the misfortune to read on Wiki, I fully agree it has been written by a paid employee. The external 'support the CTPA' is just ridiculous. And where is the predicted impact on Colombia? El gringo999 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This page only presents the US government's positive perspective on the agreement (most information is from the US Trade Rep), and virtually no information on opposition from groups in the US and Colombia including unions, NGOs, particular Senators and Congressmembers, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.101.153.67 (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't think it'd be put right back in I'd remove 70% of this article. This is one of the most laughably biased articles on the entire site for pretty obvious reasons. I don't have time to write an entire opposition segment but if someone else could throw one up I have plenty I could add along with sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.206.201 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why doesnt the link for Foreign relations in Colombia work? Its the same format as the used in the Peru TPA and the article exists (you can link on it from the 'foreign relations of peru' page). Naerhu 03:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This page was possibly written by paid employees of one of the parties which seeks implementation of the US Colombia TPA (TLC in Spanish) and is an affront to the value of Wikipedia in general and the neutrality of this debate specifically. I will attempt to locate some opposing view points and restructure this article this evening when I get home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.75.26.2 (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

renaming article to United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

I think the article's name should be moved to United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement since a fair amount of news article use that name and also it fits the similar format to other free trade agreement pages. Any thoughts? --Patrick (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

human rights???

The obvious reason for the years-long delay of this agreement in Congress, is the persistent human rights issues in Colombia. This article could use considerable detail about this factor, which continues to stall the bill as evidence of continued paramilitary-multinational-corp. collaboration continues to surface: http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/14935-us-coal-firm-drummond-paid-paramilitaries-wikileaks.html . 96.246.39.61 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit -- I just added a paragraph. The only mention about it until then was this sentence: "President Obama has asked the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to address outstanding issues in the agreement;[3] however, during a visit from Colombian President Uribe in June, 2009, Obama said he did not have a "strict timetable" to the agreement, as controversy over the safety of Colombian labor leaders continue" (emphasis mine)... that doesn't even give any context behind the statement "the safety of the labor leaders" -- specifically that Colombia over the past 7 years has seen more assassinations of peaceful labor leaders than all other countries combined. 96.246.39.61 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Human rights is the excuse protectionist US labor unions, who have considerable influence over Democrat Congressmen and the White House, are using for opposing this agreement.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)