The Labor Movement's Principled Position on Colombia FTA

Lately, in numerous news sources, including the New York Times, Miami Herald, and New York Post, the U.S. labor movement has been accused of "lying" about the violence confronting unionists in Colombia.

Really, while the articles in these papers claim the union movement is telling untruths, the heart of their argument is that labor is overstating the problem. Thus, their argument goes, "only" 39 unionists were killed last year in Colombia, a much better figure than previous years.

The commentators in these articles claim that the union movement, to make its case about how bad the labor situation in Colombia is, relies upon "outdated" statistics, such as numbers from prior years which, when totaled, show that over 2,300 unionists have been killed since 1991.
As an initial matter, the U.S. labor movement believes, not incredibly, that 39 unionists killed in a year is way too many. It remains the worst level of anti-union violence in the world.

Commentators who use "only" and "merely" to describe 39 murders, we believe, do not value the sanctity of human life.

In addition, they ignore the important fact that, even while union killings declined in 2007, the Colombian military's share of such killings actually rose. Thus, while only two unionists were killed by the military in 2006, the Colombian military was responsible for at least five union killings in 2007.

This is consistent with the overall increase in the military's share of extra-judicial killings, with the military responsible for 955 such killings in the first five years of President Alvaro Uribe's term -- a whopping 65% increase over the prior five year period.

Moreover, murder is not the only form of violence used by those who wish to intimidate and silence the labor movement. In 2007, unionists were exposed in ever increasing numbers to other forms of violence.

For example, in 2007, 101 unionists were removed by force from their homes and towns -- an astronomical increase from the seven violently removed in 2006. Indeed, when one looks at the overall violent acts against unionists (including killings, forced displacement, torture, threats, detentions and kidnappings), there was an increase in such violations from 382 in 2006 to 418 in 2007.

Again, these other forms of violence, which are equally damaging to the Colombian labor movement, are simply ignored by commentators promoting the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.

In addition, by focusing on murders that occurred in 2007, it is these commentators who are using "outdated" statistics. That is because none of these op-eds condemning the union movement as a bunch of "liars" mention the fact that at least 23 unionists have been killed in Colombia so far in the first four months of this year.

I say "at least," because unionists are being killed so quickly this year that it is hard to keep track of the numbers. If this rate of killings continues -- and I certainly pray it does not -- the level of union murders will be in keeping with that in prior years (around 70) which apparently has been sufficient to shock the consciences of even those commentators who now condemn us.

In addition, the killings of unionists, as of late, are of an increasingly more grizzly quality, with the victims showing signs of torture. As the president of the CUT (the Central Union of Workers) explains, the unionists this year "have been attacked with a knife, [and] showed signs of torture," further "generating terror" among union workers who now must fear the process of death even more than the death itself.

A recent victim, Jesus Caballero Ariza, was an instructor of human rights for his teacher's union. He disappeared on April 16, 2008 and was found two days later in a mass grave, with signs of torture, machete wounds, and a shot in the head. Of all the unionists killed so far this year, half of them, like Caballero, were teachers.

The other thing Caballero had in common with a number of unionists killed so far this year was that he was an organizer of the March 6, 2008 demonstration against state and paramilitary violence in Colombia -- a demonstration organized and sponsored by peaceful human rights and labor groups, including my union, the United Steelworkers (USW).

Yet, the organizers and participants of this demonstration were recklessly put in harm's way by the administration of President Alvaro Uribe whose own spokesman publicly announced before the demonstration that neither he nor Uribe would participate in the demonstration because, as he untruthfully and dangerously claimed, the march was being "convened by the FARC" guerillas -- a clear signal to the paramilitaries that those associated with demonstration were fair targets of violence.

As a result of this slanderous claim, at least five unionists, and two other human rights advocates, have been killed by the paramilitaries who also threatened 28 individuals with death for participating in this event.

This type of stigmatization of union leaders, which the Uribe administration habitually used against members of the labor movement, shows a reckless disregard for union members' lives in Colombia.

In the end, as a result of the continued anti-union violence in Colombia at rates unprecedented in the world, and as a result of a relentless legal assault by the Uribe administration against trade union rights, Colombia now the smallest percentage of workers with collective bargaining rights in the Western Hemisphere -- less than 1%. And, this figure is 1/4 of what it was just 10 years ago.

The U.S. labor movement is, in fact, telling the truth about the dire labor situation in Colombia, and it is opposing the Colombia FTA based upon its principled solidarity with its union brothers and sisters who continue to face the threat of anti-union violence, in all of its forms, every day.

Comments

[Pdsatx]

There's nothing principled about the Labor movement's stand on the FTA, nor Dan Kovalik's.

Kovalik told me himself he thinks the FTA would be bad for Colombia, and yet he holds it out here like some carrot for Uribe to try and grasp.
Kovalik also broad brushes the entire Colombian union movement into his protectionist camp. Meanwhile, at least 75 unions in Colombia, mostly export oriented, support the FTA. In fact, some of the recent assasinations were of union members who SUPPORTED the trade agreement. Curiously, that tidbit is missing from Kovalik's breakdown.
Kovalik, in previous columns here, rejects the fact of guerilla infiltration into the union movement, an assertion that's simply untrue. For example, Raul Reyes, the FARC leader who was killed by Colombian forces in March, got his start as a unionist.

The facts, that Kovalik can't escape though he tries, are that unionist deaths are down around 80% since Uribe's Democratic Security plans went into effect. In fact, the murder rate of the general Colombian population has dropped by 83% and kidnappings by 40% under Uribe. But Kovalik doesn't tell us any of that. I guess you have to be in a union to get Kovalik's attention.

So I repeat, there's nothing principled about Kovalik's position that boils down to, "Colombians are victims of violence, therefore they should be kept poor by witholding an agreement that wont help them anyway."

[GZipa]

Numbers are an indicator or an objective way of trying to clarify subjective progress. Reduction of union murders -yes, but the country still leads the world in deaths of union members. Combine that with impunity for those committing the crimes (less than a 3% arrest and conviction rate) and you have a labor force that is afraid. Imagine your relative being killed for asking for a fair wage and better working conditions. But due to government corruption there is a 97% chance their killer will remain free to do it again. Despite the figures in reduction of union member deaths they have not achieved a work force that feels secure in sticking up and asking for their rights. It is corruption that keeps the best-written labor laws from being enforced. There is sufficient money to pay workers a descent wage. Colombia has one of the largest disparities in the world between rich and poor. Being able to negotiate for a descent wage and good working conditions without fear is important to creating enough people with disposable income to purchase American goods. With 55% of the people living below the poverty level and many more just existing at a minimum wage of under $250 month, that does not currently exist. Bottom line is that a friendly environment for negotiation needs to exist creating a situation where both labor and management win. That is far from reality at this time in Colombia.

[mamacat]

The U.S. government has been unofficially supporting state sponsored terrorism for many years. We have done it in countries all over the globe. The only time we condemn terrorism is when it is directed at us, or when we are not the ones sponsoring it.

The U.S. labor movement needs to be very careful when they condemn criminal behaviour that the U.S. government unofficially supports. Anyone going from this country to Columbia, for example, will find that they are no longer protected by U.S. law, and the U.S. government may choose to forget that its citizens are in danger.

Since some U.S. corporate interests are involved in suppressing the labor movement in Columbia, there will be lobbyists on K street arguing for our government and the media to turn a blind eye on the fight for basic human rights in Columbia. We hear lots and lots about the struggle for human rights in Tibet, but in countries where human rights might raise the cost of doing business for corporations, we turn a blind eye.