Colombia Trade Fight is a Human Rights Test

The Colombia Free Trade Agreement is best summed up as a proposal to formalize U.S. support for the assassination of labor union organizers by death squads, impoverishment of workers and the undermining of farming operations that will leave more landless peasants with no alternative but to immigrate to the United States seeking work.

The Wisconsin-based Colombia Support Network, which has led the campaigning by U.S. activists to support human rights in that South American country, says without equivocation that the Colombia FTA "would solely benefit US transnational companies."

The Colombia Support Network is highlighting opposition on the part of labor, farm and human activists in Colombia to the trade deal now being promoted by the Bush administration. That opposition is echoed by U.S. labor, farm and human rights groups, which have united in their efforts to block congressional approval of the pact.

Colombian union federations say they opposed the pact not just because it would weaken domestic industries and jeopardize employment but because it would make it harder to advance the cause of human rights in a country where more than 2,500 trade unionists have been murdered over the past two decades.

While President Bush and his allies attempt to suggest that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe Velez has made progress in promoting human rights, honest political players in that country say the opposite. "(Uribe) has not responded adequately to the violence that plagues Colombians and particularly union leaders and human rights activists, as is demonstrated by the alarming figures from last month, in which four union leaders were murdered," explains Carlos Gaviria Diaz, the Harvard-educated constitutional lawyer who serves as president of Colombia's Polo Democrático Alternativo political party.

The former president of Colombia's Constitutional Court has deep concerns about the treaty because of the threat it poses to human rights campaigning in his country, but Gaviria's worries do not stop there.

"The fundamental problem with the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the United States and Colombia is that it has been reduced to an agreement between winners and losers," he says. "Unfortunately, we Colombians are the losers, because we lose any possibility of achieving prosperous development. Likewise, many have also indicated correctly that this FTA benefits only a select minority in the United States, not the general population. For example, the destruction of Colombian agriculture caused by the FTA will stimulate the planting of coca in Colombia and more drug dealing in the streets of American cities."

Can the Colombia FTA be blocked in Congress? Absolutely. Though Arizona Senator John McCain is a strong backer of the deal, a number of key Republicans have come out in opposition to it. Maine Senator Olympia Snowe says, "I will not support the FTA with Colombia due to ongoing concerns about Bogota's failure to prosecute individuals, including some close to its government and military, who have murdered and otherwise oppressed union leaders in that country." Former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, is also opposed because he says the Colombian government has failed to adequately addtess "still unconscionable levels of violence against trade unionists."

With the Republicans divided on this issue, a solid Democratic front in the House and Senate will stop the Colombia FTA. Most Democrats -- including presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- oppose this dramatically-flawed trade deal. But the Bush administration is focusing its lobbying energy on Democrats, especially those with ties to the radically pro-free trade Democratic Leadership Council.

The Colombia fight represents a critical test for Democrats in Congress. Most of the Democratic candidates who beat Republican members of the House and Senate in 2006 did so as outspoken critics of U.S. trade policies. Now, the party controls the Congress. By blocking this deal, they will keep an essential promise made to the American people -- and they will, at the same time, display the sort of concern the people Colombia that might finally pressure that country's oppressive government to begin respecting human rights.

Comments (20)

1. Democrats and RESPONSIBLE Repubilcans, JOHN, you Republicans who think like DEMS, right.

   Don't know why you think DEMS have a monopoly on correct thinking. A little more objectivity, if you please.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/09/2008 @ 11:53am

2. Actually, the whole thing is moot. Pelosi announced today that she's pushing through a rule change that will eliminate the House's sixty day limit to pass this turkey, so effectively killing the deal without even having to bring it to the floor. Of course, as she noted at the news conference on this (responding to Perino's and Bohner's statements that this would send a bad message), if the deal did reach the floor it would be defeated as things currently stand, and as she put it: "what message would that send to the Colombian people?" Here's the NYTimes/AP story [nytimes.com] on the whole exchange.

   Posted by Stwriley at 04/09/2008 @ 2:41pm

3. As this article illustrates, "Free Trade" does not benefit workers in the either the U.S. or Columbia. It's only purpose is to drive down wages and benefits in both countries.

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 04/09/2008 @ 3:01pm

4. Posted by HAPPY2 04/09/2008 @ 4:41p

   Yeah I'm sure it helps our image a lot when we support governments who turn a blind eye to the assassination of union leader and human rights activists. That's great for our image Happy. I'm sure the world loves the support of assassination.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/09/2008 @ 5:08pm

5. Right, this is a bad argument. Yes, you're right that the government has serious problems, and we should definitely criticize those problems, but I don't think it's a reflection of pure malice. The government has been able to make substantial progress in controlling the violence within the country, and the deaths of union leaders and human rights activists have decreased substantially. The only way to make sure that progress continues is to let the government continue in its process of improvement; making the perfect the enemy of the good is a terrible foreign policy.

   Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2008 @ 5:32pm

6. the colombian gov is a collection of typical latin american rightwing elites who have been bushes simpering ass kissers for a while.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/09/2008 @ 6:11pm

7. Absolutely!

   We cannot allow another trickle up economic policy to raise the standard of living in Columbia, thereby allowing those people to purchase imported American products. It just doesn't work! American companies and American union labor should not be given such advantages.

   Is the Columbian government too harsh on these FARC people? Not harsh enough?

   http://www.rebelion.org/plancolombia/040407urbano.htm Apologies for this one being in Spanish. Rest assured that they follow good progressive mores. http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3238&l=1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1746777.stm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/15/colomb10496.htm http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/americas/colombia.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3817455.stm http://www.acnur.org/pais/index.php?accion=pag&id=2663&iso2=CO http://www.hchr.org.co/publico/comunicados/2004/cp0423.pdf http://www.diariolavoz.net/seccion.asp?pid=18&sid=1755¬id=91084&fecha =07/14/2004 http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/farc/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR23/036/2003 http://www.colombiasoyyo.org/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6251878.stm

   I'm just glad that outfits like Human Rights Watch are here to keep us informed.

   Funny, according to a whole bunch of human rights organizations, it's Columbian Government that is acting legitimately here.

   Clearly these people are in the stuggle against oppressive right wing Government. Aren't they? Do they feel that they must kidnap and murder civilians to get attention for their cause? Gee, I dunno. Sure, the cartels are dealing in poison, but they consider themselves to be and appear to be good marxists.

   Doesn't seem right for us to do things that would actually keep the Columbians from putting a stop to the murder of civilians, does it? Shouldn't we be putting pressure on Hugo and the other neighboring nations to stop harboring "rebels"?

   Terrible. The cartels aided by neighboring countries kidnapping and killing civilians. The Columbian government responds with military action and imprisonment, followed by exchange of terrorist prisoners for surviving hostages. At least "rebels" get extradited to a safe haven in Venezuela. The Columbians also respond with defoliation of coca fields. Surely they must be able to do more without further military action, couldn't they?

   So Hugo Chaves is working to hinder this trade agreement, because it would undermine his efforts to weaken the Columbian Government.

   We're buying crude and even refined fuel from him (since we have re-allocated our limited refinery capacity for low yield biofuels) so we're keeping the Columbians from stopping terrorist murderers indirectly.

   'Course, this works out for us by making gasoline and diesel more expensive, so people will be disinclined to drive big vehicles. Transportation and food costs are rising because of this as well. Consumer spending is effected, thus assuring that we will hurt the Shrub legacy. Good news on the Dem political front, mediocre to destructive for the environment, bad for the economy, and perhaps funding murder on the side. Maybe if we could get folks down there to stop razing rainforests to make room for fuel crops, eh?

   What to do, what to do?

   Posted by nighthawk750 at 04/09/2008 @ 10:42pm

8. Happy2,

   1. Unless we are in really dire economic times, the US economy is always adding jobs. If you go ten years without adding new jobs that would be a monumental increase in the unemployment rate, just because of the increase in population.

   2. That 30 million jobs were added does not mean that NAFTA led to the addition of 30 million jobs. This is one of the really basic fallacies, confusing correllation with causation.

   3. Are these gross or net numbers? Basically is this just reporting the number of new jobs created without subtracting the jobs lost. USA Today is not a bastion of conservativism (though if you think it is a bastion of liberalism you don't know the meaning of the word), but it is also not a bastion of superior journalism. I would not put it past them to do things like use nominal instead of real measures, or to use gross instead of net job numbers.

   4. It seems to me that I have seen in a lot of places (Dean Baker from EPI is a place to look) that NAFTA has caused a net job loss. So I doubt the numbers anyway. When you take out job gains and losses in industries likely to feel no impact from NAFTA (plenty of service jobs like in resteraunts or hotels), I am guessing that the numbers look different.

   5. As for the benefits to American corporations, I tend not to care. Mom and pops don't do much exporting to Columbia. Everyone else is already doing well enough (Bush has done wonders for corporate profits) that saying an pact increases their profits doesn't do much for me. Also, while this might not be jingoistic enough for your tastes, I would rather see a Columbian corporation that keeps its money in Columbian banks, employs Columbians in middle and upper management, make those tractors. I want them to be unionized though. And I admit that is a source of problems for my view (if a unionized American corporation wipes out a Columbian non-unionized corporation it seems to me that you get a little bit of the good and a little bit of the bad).

   Thrawn,

   If you think a demand for prosecuting the murders of union leaders is a demand for perfection I really am not sure I know what to say. A demand for perfection would be more like a demand for no union busting in any form. Eliminating government complicity in murder of union leaders strikes me as the bare minimum.

   Posted by Poppolphil at 04/10/2008 @ 01:56am

9. sorry, Baker is at CEPR not EPI. EPI is probably also a good place to look though.

   Posted by Poppolphil at 04/10/2008 @ 01:58am

10. Thrawn,

    If you think a demand for prosecuting the murders of union leaders is a demand for perfection I really am not sure I know what to say. A demand for perfection would be more like a demand for no union busting in any form. Eliminating government complicity in murder of union leaders strikes me as the bare minimum.

    Posted by POPPOLPHIL 04/10/2008 @ 01:56am

    When the government is not particularly powerful and/or is dealing with multiple significant threats simultaneously, then yes, I do think you're asking from the government things that it is not capable of immediately delivering. Evidence seems to suggest that the Colombian government has vastly improved itself already, and (as I pointed out and you never responded to) engagement is the only real way we can hope to create change.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/10/2008 @ 09:42am

11. My understanding of the issue is that it is corruption and complicity in the Columbian government which allows this. It is not the case that in lawless areas outside of the governments control union leaders are being killed. They are being killed in Bogota.

    And I didn't respond to the engagement point out of the desire to focus on what I thought was your stronger point. Holding out hope of a trade deal if they improve their behavior isn't going to change that behavior? Giving them what they want from us is going to prompt them to change, after they already have what they want? The truth is we are already more engaged with Columbia than we are with any country in South America, and this is still happening. It is not as thought we have no relations with them and this trade deal is the first step. We have been backing the government against FARC for years, have been running anti-durg operations there (in tandem with Columbian authorities) for years.

    And I don't know of one clear example where economic engagement led to an improvement in democratic governance or human rights. I am not claiming that economic engagement always or even most of the times makes things worse (though the tendency of free trade pacts to increase inequality would suggest that it would have that effect), but that for the most part it has nothing to do with it. China isn't respecting human rights, Suharto ruled for years with massive US engagement with Indonesia's economy, etc.

    Posted by Poppolphil at 04/10/2008 @ 1:31pm

12. China was actually going to be my example. You're right, China still has massive rights violations going on, but it definitely appears to be making progress. It's certainly improving the democratic structure of its government, which is something, and some quantities of economic rights exist.

    Also, I think it's telling that you concede a huge point: that substantial improvement has taken place. The deaths of union leaders have plummeted, and I think that's important.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/10/2008 @ 1:53pm

13. Posted by THRAWN 04/10/2008 @ 1:53pm

    Wow...I didn't realize that General Petraeus did a report on China?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 04/10/2008 @ 2:05pm

14. Bush is angry because the trade talks with China fell though, and the reason for all the backlash concerning their exports, so he now will go to Columbia, out of spite, overlooking their violent ways. Also, he needs them to get what he wants in Venezuela, --the oil!

    Posted by nations at 04/10/2008 @ 3:57pm

15. Bush is angry because the trade talks with China fell though, and the reason for all the backlash concerning their exports, so he now will go to Columbia, out of spite, overlooking their violent ways. Also, he needs them to get what he wants in Venezuela, --the oil!

    Posted by nations at 04/10/2008 @ 3:58pm

16. Nations

    Why would he want to get oil from Venezuela? We're already getting it. We're dumbe enough to get refined fuel there too.

    They drill where we're too stupid to, is that it?

    Mask, long time no see.

    You're not still offering facts here are you? Haven't you figured out by now that it's not welcome?

    Posted by nighthawk750 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:35pm

17. Thrawn,

    I didn't contest it because I didn't know it to be false, and I didn't think its truth or falsity was relevant.

    Posted by Poppolphil at 04/10/2008 @ 9:17pm

18. It's fascinating how leftists like Rotherneberg are attractecd to bad ideas like moths to a flame. Cut and run in Iraq? Yeah! Socialized health care! Yeah! Unaffordable new health care programs? Sure! Protectionism? All for it!

    I think every idiot in America must feel the urge to become a leftist.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2008 @ 10:53pm

19. Yes,....and, Duh, but of course! States that adapted to NAFTA and either had or created business-friendly environments, like Texas, have benefited handsomely!

    Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 2:43pm

    especially, with the influx NAFTAsized mexican slaves.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/11/2008 @ 12:45am

20. Americans are hoodwinked into believing prosperity & human rights is a ZERO-SUM GAME.

    no. Humanism is greater than Nationalism.

    Why is it NOBODY but the racist Lou Dobbs talks about the 'NAFTA on STEROIDS' Security & Prosperity Partnership?

    Wake up folks... we're getting screwed the same way the "School of the Americas" / "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" enabled the "New World Order" practise in SE Asia & Latin America.

    Remember THE OTHER 9/11 in Chile?

    have your READ Naomi Klein or Naomi Wolf yet?

    we're getting screwed... & nobody is worried about anything except how TO SCREW SOMEBODY ELSE to cover their own ass...

    all Americans want to talk about is HOW AMERICANS suffer or prosper... gee, I guess its coming home to roost.

    SINCE WHEN did holding the bully's coat become the 'democracy' that Americans export? well, how many times has the US gone to war? over 200x.

    "Integrate This! is about challenging the Security and ProsperityPartnership of North America (SPP), an executive-level pact between the governments & corporate sectors of Canada, the United States & Mexico, which has never been debated publicly or voted on in any of the three countries. There are over 300 initiatives in the SPP aimed at harmonizing North American policies on food, drugs, security, immigration, refugees, manufacturing, the environment & public health.

    http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/

    But media reports often fail to link regulatory changes designed to move the SPP forward back to the broader goal of continental economic & security integration. The goal of the Integrate This! website is to make those links. As well as regular SPP updates, the site is full of reports, interviews and multimedia presentations critical of what's often called the "deep integration" of North America. News updates will be posted here regularly & archived.

    Deep Integration: A Timeline - updated March 2008 - http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/timeline.html "

    ~~~ Spread Love... BlueBerry Pick'n ThisCanadian com ~~~ "We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid. ~~~ "Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced" "Do no harm"

    Posted by ThisCanadian at 04/11/2008 @ 12:18pm