Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
In mid-May 2019, I read an article that was published online by Cambridge University Press. The item had been issued from the ‘American Journal of International Law.’ The article was initially published on 2nd Apr 2019 Volume 113, pages 400-404. Like most of you, I only accessed the information through my most reliable and credible source, ‘The Cambridge Core.’ Concerning the context of the content, I recalled how our government in January 2019 made claims and raised concerns about Peru’s commitment to the bilateral trade agreement. As an insight into the issues that we have witnessed over the years, it’s important to recap some of the landmarks and events that surround the subject matter (Cambridge press, 2019).
The agreement that the government is referring to is the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. As a patriotic citizen of our United States, I have been following up on the progress of the agreement since 2006. We signed a deal through representatives, and equal and equally capable personalities had also presented Peru. As one of the parts of the treaty neither us nor Peru representatives could or can claim more powers or act as the command on the negotiations
(United State Trade Representatives, 2019).
As a state, we had and have all concerns about trade relations with Peru. Peru is the largest market in our exports, and trade activities need to be safeguarded through mutual interests. In 2006 we were exporting 80% of total exports to Peru. Even today, despite changes in market dynamics and scales, Peru remains the external reading market. It cannot escape my mind how the goals and objectives have shifted with time. Environmental degradation, global warming, and multilateral conservation became a significant concern to us towards 2010. Towards 2010 we witnessed a lot of problems on draught related issues that were seriously harmful to our social, economic systems. Our agriculture, energy sources, water reserves, health, and even transport got significant drawbacks from environmental issues (United States Trade Representatives, 2019).
Our government raised the concern of logging in Peru last year. This year and to be precise in February, we have all heard the news and read news published on our media on the issue of carbon release from amazon forest (Davidson,2020). Our most reliable carbon sink is no longer a sink but a consumer? Did our forest ingest much it can’t contain more? Have technological developments been occurring in amazon plants that the GIGO principle applies to trees in amazon?
As a state, we were concerned by the Peru government proposal to have OSINFOR (Agency for the Supervision of Forest Resources and Wildlife) reduced to a department under the Ministry of Environment. It is important to report we settled the matter through resolutions that we passed in April 2019. Recent events and discoveries open another chapter. We can no longer as a state really on multilateral or bilateral agreements to safeguard our environment. New strategies must be established to protect our resources and population from the harmful and detrimental effects of greenhouse gases.