U.S. Economic Woes Strengthen the Case for Free Trade With Colombia

[Zorro]

President Bush denies reports that, in conversations with President-elect Barack Obama, he linked his support for a bigger auto industry bailout, or possibly a fiscal stimulus package, to a demand that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., end her legislative blockade of the Colombia free-trade agreement. The Obama transition team denies it, too. That’s just as well, since every legislative proposal should stand or fall on its own merits. Fortunately, the Colombia agreement passes that test.

Democrats in Congress, regrettably echoed by Mr. Obama on the campaign trail, frame their objections not in economic but political terms, arguing that Colombia has a dismal record on human rights. This characterization defies all reality. Since President Alvaro Uribe’s first election in 2002, murder has declined by 40 percent; kidnappings have fallen by 75 percent. Supported by the United States and by a huge majority of the Colombian people, Mr. Uribe’s firm but professional military approach has decimated the Marxist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known as FARC), which once threatened to render the country ungovernable. Mr. Uribe has also brought right-wing paramilitary groups to heel. When evidence emerged recently that some of his troops had killed innocent people to inflate enemy body counts, Mr. Uribe fired 27 army officers and soldiers, including three generals.

Nor do the facts support Democrats’ oft-repeated claim that Colombia is a particularly deadly place for trade unionists. Crime statistics for 2007 show that union members in Colombia were actually LESS likely to be murdered than members of the general population. This is partly due to the overall drop in homicide, but it is also because of special protective measures instituted by the Uribe government, at a cost of $38 million last year. More broadly, the U.S.-Colombia pact contains the same protections for labor rights - and the environment - that Congress accepted in a separate deal between the United States and Peru. A steadfast U.S. ally in South America, Colombia deserves the political seal of approval that the free-trade agreement would deliver - not ostracism.

And then there’s self-interest: The main economic effect of the trade agreement would be to enable U.S. producers - automakers included - to export to Colombia tariff-free. This would simply level the playing field, because 90 percent of Colombian goods already arrive in the United States tariff-free under temporary trade preferences that Congress recently renewed. With U.S. goods exports to Colombia totaling over $8 billion per year, the pact offers a nifty dose of stimulus for U.S. businesses and workers. While America stalls, Europe moves: The European Commission announced this week that it wants to start free-trade talks with Bogota. Why would Democrats need any deals or inducements to pass a measure that would promote U.S. foreign policy interests and create American jobs?

http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2008/12/13/news/opinion/opin13.txt

[DJ13]

1. - to export to Colombia tariff-free.

Same old, tired excuses thats always used.

People need to THINK this stuff through.

Columbia gets "something" for allowing US goods in without tariffs, otherwise they could remove the tariffs without a trade agreement, but what?

Most likely there are already signed agreements with US corporations to move more US factories there to utilize the cheap labor as soon as the agreement gets passed.

Just another bad trade in the selling out of American workers.

[Sinistrous]

2. Another point of view, if I may:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/us-free-trade-death_b_41845.html

<snip>

The Colombia Free Trade Agreement. What would it do? The FTA's grant of duty-free U.S. access for flowers and certain other commercial-scale agri-export crops will certainly put pressure on Colombia to expand agribusiness plantations for such exports. These plantations have been a disaster for the regular farmer. Indeed, under pressure in the 1990s from international lending organizations, Colombia implemented a program of "economic openness," which unleashed a tide of traditional cereals, rice and oats pouring into the country. As a result, 1.1 million hectares of cultivated land were lost. Arenas says that 300,000 farmers, then, turned to cultivating coca. "So, now, with FTA, they want to lower every tariff to zero which will devastate every farmer and make them grow coca," says Arenas.

Foreign investor rights--a typical pro-corporate, so-called "free trade," measure--would tighten the grip that large corporations have on the country's natural resources and launch a large-scale plundering of those resources such as timber and minerals. Without a government willing to nationalize such resources or, at the very least, make sure that the benefits of the commercial exploitation are widely spread, you can be sure that huge riches will flow to a handful of people, while most of the population is left with pennies.

The upshot: the so-called "free trade" deal would likely displace hundreds of thousands of poor rural Colombians from their lands, sending them into far deeper economic despair--and forcing many of them to work for the very groups that violently displaced them from their lands. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs conducted a study of the effects of the 1990s economic "liberalization" and concluded that such a move led to a 35 per cent drop in employment. You can be sure that the proposed so-called "free trade" deal will wreak similar havoc.

<snip>

Let's not forget the drug companies. Pharmaceutical companies will get exclusive patent rights, getting 20-year monopoly rights to market drugs in Colombia--the very kind of provisions that have driven up drug prices in the U.S. Generic drugs will effectively be banned for ten years--putting tremendous economic pressure on the health care system in Colombia.

Put simply, the deal would benefit business and political interests tied to the paramilitary forces. If you have any doubts about the links between the government and these right-wing paramilitary forces, check this out. In November 2006, two powerful senators and two members of Congress--allies of President Uribe - resigned because of evidence they had conspired with paramilitary groups. The Uribe government was rocked this past Monday when its foreign minister resigned:

This makes support of the Columbia FTA appear to be nothing more than republicanism as usual -- corporations first, screw the people.

[Sinistrous]

3. An earlier DU post presenting data at varience with the OP's quote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3644184