For the United States, market access and, in particular, tariff reduction were a central objective of the negotiations. For countries that have trade agreements with Chile, such as Canada, the uniform 6% tariff will be waived for most goods, a benefit that the United States wanted to eliminate. On the other hand, U.S. imports from Chile face different tariffs, although some products enter the United States duty-free under normal trade relations (see Appendix C for the customs processing of Chile`s major exports). Major U.S. imports from Chile are not eligible for duty-free treatment under the Generalized Preference System (GSP), a preferential trade agreement made by industrialized countries for imports from developing countries. The United States and Chile negotiated the timetable for phased tariff reductions on the product negotiation schedule, which differentiates the processing of sensitive products, as was the case with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The provisions of the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement do not eliminate Chile`s right to reintroduce its capital control legislation, particularly the Encaje Ley, but to extend certain additional rights to U.S. investors. In addition, they point out that U.S.
investors could strive for a dispute resolution if Chile introduced controls that significantly prevented the portfolio`s capital from leaving the country, sparking debate over whether such restrictions fit into free trade agreements. Attention to this issue has increased following Congressional approval of the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, particularly in light of the number of subsequent free trade agreements moving towards congressional actions. Although, in the case of the United States-Chile, the language of capital control may be considered a compromise, it is far from clear that the language chosen for the particular Chilean case will be able to take into account other countries negotiating free trade agreements with the United States or the concerns of the U.S. Congress. 20. (return) The difference is that the social costs of environmental degradation, pollution, poor working conditions and low wages are not taken into account in the production process. Through legal and regulatory measures, developed countries require companies to bear many of these costs, which are then reflected in the final (relatively higher) price of goods or services in the market. The important qualification for portfolio capital indicates that Chile assumes no liability in the event of injury: documentation on how a product is produced or fulfils the rules of origin can make the use of the tariffs negotiated by the ESTV a little more complicated. However, these rules help ensure that U.S. exports, not exports from other countries, benefit from the agreement. Oman Oman was the fifth Middle Eastern country to sign a free trade agreement with the United States and the free trade agreement between the United States and Oman was implemented in January 2009.
In 2016, the United States exported $1.2 billion worth of goods to Oman and $882 million in Omani products. USTR Oman FTA page 29. (return) Polaski, Sandra. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on the implementation of bilateral U.S. free trade agreements with Singapore and Chile. June 17, 2003. In recent years, the United States has signed bilateral free trade agreements with Jordan, Singapore and Chile. All three have common elements, but each reflects country-specific issues.
A recurring question for the U.S. Congress regarding the trade negotiation process was to what extent one agreement becomes a model for another? For example, when the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement was signed in December 2002, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick