Even Republicans Favor Stalling Colombia Deal

The Bush administration's propaganda arm -- which operates under the misnomer: White House Communications office -- is pushing the fantasy that Thursday's House vote to delay action on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement was "trade pandering."

But what does former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican with a long record of backing free trade pacts and a basic sympathy with the Colombia FTA say?

"The Colombian free-trade agreement faces stiff opposition because many in Congress believe the Colombian government has not taken sufficient measures to ensure the safety and security of its workers. This opposition could derail its passage this year, setting a negative precedent for the Colombia FTA, as well as for the Panamanian and South Korean free trade agreements," says Lugar.

Are these belief's irrational?

Lugar doesn't seem to think so.

"I ask President Bush to work with the Colombian Government to show tangible progress regarding labor practices in Colombia," says the Republican senator. "Without proof in this regard the significant economic and political benefits of the FTA with Colombia could be jeopardized."

In the House, six Republicans broke with their party leadership -- and the White House -- in order to pander to workers in the U.S. and Colombia, farm, environmental and human rights groups that say the Colombia FTA is the wrong deal at the wrong time.

Along with the 218 Democrats who voted against what is officially referred to as "the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement," the six Republicans who voted "no" were: Alabamans Bob Aderholt and Mike Rogers, Virginian Virgil Goode, North Carolinians Robin Hayes and Walter Jones and Texan Ron Paul.

Does the White House think these Republicans were pandering?

Does the White House think that Richard Lugar does not know what he is talking about?

Or is the White House Propaganda, er, Communications office just spinning?

Comments (7)

1. Workers?

   Pfah!

   Holding up progress in the financial markets.

   Lugar must be a closet liberal, like McCain and Hagel. Damn softies.

   Posted by crabwalk at 04/11/2008 @ 10:09am

2. Repubs face a tough (to be generous) election year and a recession to boot.

   And free trade agreements aren't that popular in a lot of those contested districts/states.

   AND, perhaps they're taking their cues from the Leader of the Party....no, not the President, he's finished....the Nominee.

   Posted by Mask at 04/11/2008 @ 10:57am

3. Today's Counterpunch carries a somewhat lengthy, but entirely pertinent piece by Nikolas Kozloff:

   How Obama Could Seize Pennsylvania

   I've distilled some key excerpts:

   Pressing Colombia's Agenda: Hillary's Sleazy Advisers

   Though Clinton herself has opposed the Colombia free trade agreement, her campaign is knee deep in Colombia sleaze. In addition to his public relations work lobbying for the Colombia free trade agreement, Penn also worked as an adviser to Coca-Cola, a company which faces legal action in connection with its bottling plants in Colombia.

   A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Florida accused the Coca-Cola Company, its Colombian subsidiary and business affiliates of using paramilitary death squads to murder, torture, kidnap and threaten union leaders at the multinational soft drink manufacturer's Colombian bottling plants. The suit was filed by the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund on behalf of SINALTRAINAL, the Colombian union that represents workers at Coca-Cola's Colombian bottling plants.

   The story doesn't end there, however.

   Another top Clinton campaign aide ­ spokesman Howard Wolfson ­ is an owner of the Glover Park Group, to which the Colombian government pays a $40,000 per month retainer to lobby for the US-Colombia free trade agreement. In the wake of the scandal involving Penn, Clinton promoted Wolfson to take over the campaign's "strategic message team."

   In other words, Hillary's clarifications on Colombia notwithstanding, Glover Park Group has been arguing the same position on the free trade agreement as Penn.......

   Bill's Sordid Colombia Past and Present

   In addition to Penn and Wolfson, there's also husband Bill to consider. As President, Clinton went to bat for Andrés Pastrana, whose administration was equal to if not worse than the sordid Uribe regime when it came to protecting human rights. Clinton backed so-called Plan Colombia and approved $1.3 billion to the Andean nation while waiving human rights conditions. More than $900 million of the U.S. contribution went toward military and police equipment, including attack helicopters and other lethal aid, ostensibly in an effort to prosecute the drug war.

   What's particularly jarring is that Clinton backed the Pastrana government despite rampant human rights abuses in Colombia at the time. According to Human Rights Watch, right wing paramilitaries massacred civilians, committed selective killings, and spread terror with the tolerance and open support of the armed forces.

   Labor was hit particularly hard during the Pastrana years: the Colombian President enacted strict austerity measures and began selling off state-owned banks and other nationalized enterprises. When some 800,000 state workers struck in protest, Pastrana declared the strike illegal.

   Meanwhile, labor leaders were assassinated.

   Bill's Colombia advocacy has continued under the Uribe regime. According to the Politico, the former President was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is ostensibly a development group tasked with bringing investment to Colombia and educating world leaders about the country's business opportunities.......

   On Colombia, Hillary is little Better

   Though Hillary hasn't made personal junkets to Bogotá, her record on Colombia does not inspire much confidence. In the Senate she has been careful not to stick her neck out on behalf of human rights in Colombia, leaving this task to more principled liberal folk.

   In 2002, The Latin American Working Group singled out the late Paul Wellstone, Patrick Leahy, and Russ Feingold for their tireless efforts to raise the issue of human rights in Colombia. All three denounced aerial fumigations of coca leaf which had dire environmental consequences in Colombia. Clinton was nowhere to be found on the issue.

   In 2003, the usual Senate suspects including Dodd, Feingold, Leahy and Kerry sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell expressing serious concern about a speech given by Uribe. In chilling fashion, the Colombian President accused some human rights groups of acting as "terrorist spokespeople," remarks which put human rights defenders in danger. The Senators' letter of protest also opposed amnesty for paramilitary leaders involved in grave human rights abuses.

   Where was Clinton? The junior Senator from New York refused to sign on to the letter......

   Sewing up the Nomination in Pennsylvania

   Mark Penn reportedly believes that the entire Colombia story, and the issue of his conflict of interest within the Clinton campaign, will ultimately blow over. According to Huffington Post, Penn remarked that the fiasco would vanish from the news cycle within a couple of days.

   Camp Obama seems to be catching on to the importance of the story.......

   ~Well, I certainly hope that Camp Obama are "catching on". Here, in the Columbia "Free Trade" story, is a prime opportunity for Barack to take a vigorous and vociferous stand to let the American working populace know who's got their back.

   I, for one, will be watching closely the content and character of the signals he sends as April 22 rapidly approaches.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/11/2008 @ 2:53pm

4. Let's not lose sight of the fact that there is no "natural form" to a trade agreement. The deal is whatever both sides AGREE that it is. Including language for workers rights and/or environmental protection is not anti-trade. Automatically excluding such issues from discussion is, in fact, crafting a deal that benefits only a very narrow segment of the citizenry.

   The GOP is fond of saying that Liberals want to pick "winners and losers" when we assert this. The GOP is picking "winners and losers" also: they simply like the current scoreboard.

   Posted by Egalitare at 04/11/2008 @ 5:35pm

5. Posted by B_KOOL_66 04/11/2008 @ 2:53pm |

   howdy.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/11/2008 @ 7:31pm

6. I, for one, will be watching closely the content and character of the signals he sends as April 22 rapidly approaches.

   Posted by B_KOOL_66 04/11/2008 @ 2:53pm

   just watch the hillary swill machine fire up about 4 days before the vote.

   some kinda story based on "sources" that is "dis"confirmed the day after the primary.....

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/11/2008 @ 7:34pm

7. just watch the hillary swill machine fire up about 4 days before the vote.

   some kinda story based on "sources" that is "dis"confirmed the day after the primary.....

   Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/11/2008 @ 7:34pm

   As per usual Frosty?

   Nice to see they'll break with the White House on this but refuse to on any Iraq policy. That will sink them more than any supposed courage on the CFTA.

   Posted by yutsano at 04/11/2008 @ 9:03pm