This imbalance is made worse by the US refusal to address the issue of subsidies of approximately 90 million dollars that it gives its agriculture sector which artificially lowers prices of agricultural goods. Yet at the same time, the US demands the withdrawal of all protectionist measures in other countries.

2. Free trade for developing countries like Bolivia often means a growth in imports which is significantly higher than the likely growth in exports.  For example, in 1994 Bolivia’s exports to the United Status were worth $ 353 million dollars, yet a decade later they had actually fallen to $209.8 million. Yet in roughly the same period, imports from the US into Bolivia had risen from $228.8 million in 1994 to $307.3 million in 2003.

Studies by the US Trade Representative have said that the free trade agreement won’t bring short-term benefits and that the impact on the economies in the long term will be “very little.”

3. Bolivia’s export sector doesn’t contribute greatly to either income or employment, but high levels of imports can have a devastating impact on jobs and income of Bolivia’s internal market. Allowing free imports of subsidised agricultural goods from the US could devastate lives of many people in rural communities. It has been calculated that Bolivia, by allowing free imports of soya, could lose $400 million dollars given that USA is the leading producer of soya and continues to subsidise its agricultural sector.

4. Free trade and liberalization of foreign investment has tended to skew Bolivia’s trade towards exports of natural resources even if this is not in the long-term interest of Bolivia. A few products such as minerals, gas & oil, soya, wood and jewelry make up most of Bolivia’s exports. The extraction of gas and minerals already make up 45% of exports.

For ten years, Bolivian products have entered the US market but it has not led to either a diversification or industrialization of Bolivia’s exports. Only 12% of Bolivia’s exports have added value, meanwhile the prices of primary commodities continue to fall relative to the price of manufactured goods.

5. Free Trade agreements like the Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC) leave countries with much less negotiating power than exists at World Trade Organisation (WTO) where developing countries are the majority. Free trade agreements agreed at regional level can undermine the gains and promises made to developing countries countries at gatherings of the WTO.

6. Bolivia is being pressurized into signing up to TLC to replace the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Enforcement Act (ATPDEA) which is due to run out on 31 December 2006. This allowed a certain amount of Bolivian exports into the US market without any tariffs. If this isn’t renewed it could lead to a loss of between 1.4 and 2% of national income. 

However this was not a trade treaty, but a political act designed to support the fight against drugs. If the US wants to show its commitment to Bolivia’s development, it should continue to allow Bolivian exports without tariffs without trying to negotiate a deal that could worsen poverty in Bolivia.

7. Bolivia is already a very open economy, but under negotiations for TLC would be required to make further concessions in the areas of intellectual property, treatment of foreign investment and government purchases. 

One such concession would be a likely agreement to extend patent protections on all old American pharmaceutical products that would phase out many generic brands produced by the small but healthy pharmaceutical sector in Bolivia, made up of 16 companies that employ 1,800 workers and generates revenues of $55 million a year. “The impact would not be immediate," says Erika Dueñas, manager of the Bolivian Pharmaceutical Industry Chamber. "But in the long term, it would mean the closing of our companies."

8. Tratado de Libro Comercio undermines Bolivian sovereignty and democracy. Bolivia’s constitution enshrines various rights that would be under threat from a trade treaty that places commercial considerations above Bolivian sovereignty.

For example, indigenous rights will probably be threatened by decisions on intellectual property, freedom of information is being challenged by the secretive nature of the negotiations and Bolivia’s right to submit foreign companies to its laws would be superceded by international tribunals. 

Bolivia is currently moving towards holding a Constituent Assembly in 2006 and 2007 to redraw the constitution and strengthen the rights of indigenous groups – its attempt to clarify and deepen the sovereignty of Bolivian people would be undermined by a treaty that is due to be signed before the end of 2006.

9. Twenty years of reducing tariffs has not led to increased trade or prosperity for the Andean region. Between 1980 and 1999, countries in the region reduced import tariffs from an average of 30 to 10%. Yet between 1983 and 2002, the region’s proportion of world exports actually fell from 5.8% to 5.6%.

10. Experiences of North American Free Trade Agreements (NAFTA) and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) have shown that these trade agreements benefit multinational companies to the detriment of the environment, labour rights and people’s access to health and education. 

For example, Canada was forced under NAFTA to reverse its ban on PCB-contaminated waste when Ohio-based S.D. Myers Inc. threatened a lawsuit. After the reversal, S.D. Myers still filed for "damages" incurred while the law was in effect.

The current CAFTA agreement, likely to be a model for TLC, prohibits governments from considering corporate responsibility concerns in their competitive bidding process. Corporations could also challenge regulations protecting people's right to food, education, health, and basic utilities as "barriers to trade."

The result has been clearly seen near the Mexican-U.S. border, where wages are low, union organizing is suppressed, and pollution has led to increased cases of hepatitis and birth defects among workers.