WASHINGTON: The details had been ironed out after more than two years of negotiations, with Chile and Singapore both about to complete free-trade agreements with the United States.

While Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was getting the red-carpet treatment this week in Washington at the signing ceremony for the city-state’s free-trade deal with the world’s largest economy, Chile was left standing outside, empty-handed.

It is a poorly held secret that the two countries’ different Iraq policies played a decisive role. Chile supported more weapons inspections instead of military action, while Singapore backed the US and its war plans.

Washington was disappointed that Chile, currently a member of the United Nations Security Council, was ready to vote down a resolution that would have authorized the US-led strike against the Baghdad regime.

“We hoped for their support in a time that we felt was very important,” US Trade representative Robert Zoellick said.

He stopped short of conceding that Chile’s anti-war position was the reason why a free-trade agreement has not come through yet between the two countries.

“The administration wants to squirm them a little bit, but in the long run their stance won’t hurt them. But one thing is clear: you cannot act as if it was a prize for certain behaviour,” said Daniel Ikenson, a trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a market- liberal think tank in Washington.

Countries such as France, a staunch opponent to the war in Iraq, could also feel the wrath of Washington’s economic power. France’s behaviour must result in consequences, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently.

Congress already urged the Pentagon to cancel French firm Sodexo’s catering contract with the Marine infantry. One Republican congressman has even proposed an end to the use of French marble at US military cemeteries.

Under President George W. Bush, the US government has made no secret of using its economic power as a foreign policy tool, Ikenson said.

Zoellick calls it “competition in liberalization”, and Washington thinks it’s a healthy approach.

If one country clearly benefits from a trade agreement with the US, other countries will strive to follow suit, Ikenson said.—dpa