Colombia Free Trade Agreement: A Bad Deal for Everyone Involved

If we had been born in Colombia, we would probably be dead.

That's right. As members of our respective labor unions, the fight for higher wages, better working conditions, and a secure pension could have cost us our lives.

Thirty nine trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and they are being killed at a rate of over one per week this year.

Of the more than 2,500 murders in that nation since 1986, only 68 cases -- around 3 percent -- have resulted in convictions. However, many of these criminals were convicted in absentia -- meaning they may still be at large and continuing to terrorize workers.

Yet inexplicably, President Bush and some Members of Congress want to reward Colombia with a free trade agreement.

Not on our watch. The right to organize and bargain collectively is essential to human freedom. We believe passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) would greatly diminish our nation's reputation as a leader in the fight to end human rights abuses worldwide.

Despite President Alvaro Uribe's claim that the Colombian government has cleaned up its act, signs of trouble continue to persist.

Colombia's chief federal prosecutor's office has a backlog of over 1,300 cases of murders, threats, and intimidation involving trade unionists.

Last month, the Colombian government removed a highly respected member of a three-judge panel tasked with reducing this backlog.

And Colombian intelligence officials have been linked to the paramilitaries known for carrying out these assassinations.

Are these the actions of a 'courageous ally in South America' or of a government that has something to hide?

Historic violence against trade unionists is just one of many problems with the Colombia FTA. Like the Peru FTA, an agreement we strongly opposed, the Colombia proposal is based on the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model which led to the outsourcing of millions of high-paying American jobs and virtually eliminated the U.S. manufacturing industry.

This comes at a time when we are in recession. The economy lost 80,000 jobs in March, the third consecutive month of rising unemployment. And the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program -- a safety net for displaced workers -- remains essentially dysfunctional. Passage of the Colombia FTA would add insult to injury for American workers.

President Bush and his allies in Congress have also been claiming that the Colombia FTA is a matter of national security. We couldn't agree more.

Let's review the facts. It has already been established that Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a union member. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Violence against Afro-Colombians is rampant. The Washington Post recently reported that Colombian troops are killing farmers and passing their bodies off as rebels. And three of our nation's military contractors remain hostage there.

We believe defeating the Colombia FTA, not passing it, is in the best interest of our national security.

We commend both major Democratic presidential candidates for opposing this agreement -- a testament to the will of the American people. Their interests -- not business groups or conservative think tanks -- should dictate our trade agenda.

President Bush's unprecedented decision to unilaterally submit the Colombia FTA is a slap in the face to Democratic leaders and constitutes a retreat from the bipartisan pact on trade agreed to last year -- something we were skeptical of from the outset given the President's record.

We urge House leadership to use all the tools in its arsenal to ensure this agreement's demise.

Chairman Mike Michaud (D-ME) and Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) are both members of the House Trade Working Group.

Comments

[AnninCA]

I am not sure I agree with my candidate, Hillary, regarding this issue.

I'm going to continue to read and learn.

It strikes me as unrealistic to think we're not just saying to Colombians.......go back to the cocaine trade if we won't open up our markets.

So, Hill.........I know you're trying to win Penn, but I am not sure I agree.

[Karen68]

Hillary Clinton says she opposes free trade in Colombia but actions speak louder than words. (I believe she said something similar herself about her opponents.) Ask why her former chief strategist, Mark Penn was advising the Colombian government how to promote a trade agreement (he was paid $10,800,000 for his input to her campaign.)

A campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson has financial ties to Colombia through the Glover Park Group, funded by Clinton administration's Joe Lockhart. Bill Clinton received $800,000 in speaking fees from a Colombian FT group, honored by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe as a minister of tourism.

What do we really want from Colombia -- a nation rife with violence, drugs, corruption government-sanctioned paramilitary murder of trade unionists and their families? Oil! Big oil companies have investment interest in Colombia. Clinton friend, Frank Giustra's has advised on a Colombian oil field deal. Bill Clinton personally introduced Giustra to Uribe. Guistra is grateful to the Clinton's to the tune of a $31 million donation to Clinton's charitable fund.

Former President Clinton initiated "Plan Colombia" to curb violence and drug trade, whichl continues under Uribe after taxpayers spent $5 billion towards efforts that failed. The measure was slipped into a bill that included natural disaster relief and spending for military health care.

Then there is the helicopter defense contracts interest in continued business in Colombia to fight drugs? There is more to this story behind the man Bush calls his "friend."

Sources: straight from this Huffington Post

[progresivo]

My name is Manuel and I live in Colombia, my dad was a union activist for most of his life, the constant persecution by the armed forces and paramilitary forces destroyed our family, we had to meet him secretly, he always had to live on the run, and he was dissapeared 4 years ago.

Violence against union members is very real in Colombia, and the democratic party stances and the US unions positions against pacts like this FTA are our only hope.

[argeec]

Great article!
And you guys are doing a great job in congress!

[JRichardson]

I think this post clearly sums up the major flaws in this FTA. I would like to note one additional point: While much attention is made to U.S. trade unionists and politicians opposing this deal, it's worth noting that many counterparts in the Colombian trade movement oppose this deal as well.

While perhaps good for some business interests, this agreement, if approved, will drive down wages in both nations, contribute to the continuing violence in Colombia and serve no long term benefit.

[iratior]

The North American Free Trade Agreement has been in effect for some years. So how come the streets aren't paved with gold by now, just as proponents of the agreement figuratively promised? I try to keep an open mind about economic policy, but the key question that I think needs to be addressed is simply this: HAS IT WORKED? And when given proposed answers to this question, I don't want irrelevant statistics like increases in per capita income. Increases in per capita income don't mean squat if all the income is going just to an elite group. Until ordinary Americans actually experience a better standard of living, Congress ought to turn down Bush's request for a Colombian free trade agreement. The rune should be "Fan the flames of discontent / Times by Three of Fates be bent."

[Daniel8168]

"We commend both major Democratic presidential candidates for opposing this agreement -- a testament to the will of the American people."

Hmmm... I think the jury is out on whether Hillary opposes this agreement. Kind of hard to believe that she opposes it when her top two advisors, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn, have both lobbyed for Colombian - American FTA's.

At least there were some nice points made as to why a Colombian - American FTA really is a bad idea.

[Aleka]

Oh snap!

You better scribble Hillary off your list of people who oppose this.

[Bladernr1001]

con't

2. Unions can cause a loss of jobs. The best example in this country over the last 40 years or so has been the fate of the US auto industry. In the 1950's and 60's, the auto industry was on top of the world. Unions had much power and the auto companies pretty much paid their workers whatever they their unions demanded. But then that gave upstart competition from places like Japan the opportunity to undercut the prices that US companies had to charge. By the 1970's this was exactly what started to happen. Auto jobs started to moved offshore. Auto companies natually were inclined to devise cheaper ways than pure labor to build cars (ie: robots). Raising labor costs always makes this endeavor easier. And while US auto companies enjoyed some very good times in the 80's and 90's they have overall been overtaken by foreign competitors that do not have the financial burdens borne of the union concessions of the past.


3. Union action drives up prices. If Walmart is ever successfully unionized it will have to raise prices. Very simple. So you are benefitting one group (workers) at the expense of another (customers). Do union leaders posess some great wisdom about what the balance should be here more than the rest of us? Geeze, give me a break! I say the only fair and moral thing to do here is to let the market decide.

[mundog50]

Bladerunner? Crackpipesmoker would be a better nome de plume! I don't know if you are just some pathetic loser living in his mothers basement, without a clue about having to make a living is all about, or if you are just some delusional Walmart employee.
Employers and corporations never "let the market decide." John D. Rockefeller devoted a great deal of time eliminating his competition. Why? Because then he could set the price of oil and the labor involved to bring it to market.

Unions are solely responsible for any of the small benefits the workers enjoy these days. And George Bush is even actively trying to take those few crumbs away.

[Bladernr1001]

You did not address or rebut any of my points....but that is the typical way this goes.

[barbarianatthegate]

Bladernr1001:

Yeah, sure, it's the unions' fault that Detroit automakers designed and manufactured poor quality cars.

[Bladernr1001]

You are right but they saddle the companies with higher than market labor costs. this made it all the easier for competitiors to take market share.

[Karen68]

1. Unions do not cause job losses. Bad design and not giving the customer what they want does.

2. Foreign car makers have built plants in the U.S. that pay wages equal to or higher than those at Ford, Chevy, etc. High wages are not a problem but high health care cost is. America has the highest health care cost in the world, yet are among the most unhealthy people in the world.

3. I was in a union -- a Vice President representative in the office of a major U.S. manufacturing plant. The unions made concessions "to keep good jobs here." Mexico never made a profit on jobs paying $1.07 an hour, with few benefits. Quality was poor, employee turn over never got a skilled workforce. Warranty costs were high, damaging a reputation of quality products.

They nearly went bankrupt -- bought out by a competitor who closed the "unprofitable" plant. The CEO that destroyed an iconic company received an excess of $10 million to award his bad performance.

Greed does cost jobs -- by the company's CEO and executive and failed trade policies. Free trade is not fair trade. Someone is always willing to work for less, often use young children in slave conditions who work long hours with few regulations.

When you buy cheap electronics at the "Wal-Mart's" in this country, you just cost someone their job - supporting slave labor.

I'd say "Buy American!" but it isn't made here anymore.

[Bladernr1001]

You always talk about greed. What is greed? If there is not a profit motive then what is the motive? You have been taught that geed is evil....what is so evil? Ripping someone off is bad.....but providing someone a product or service that they find valuable and profiting from that is not evil!

What is evil is the government trying to tax away as much as possible and squandering it on useless experiments in socialism.

[Bladernr1001]

Ok, these guys are obviously pro union. As such, I feel compelled to point out the weak points of unions from an economic point of view.

1. Unions prevent the free market for labor to operate. There is a misconception that employers control the market price for labor. This could not be further from the truth. Employers have benefitted from an oversupply of workers in past history. This is true. Basic principals of economics show that this will natually drive down the price of labor. But this does not mean that business controls the price of labor....they are simply benefitting from market conditions. No one seems to strike out in protest when there is a shortage of workers which drives labor costs higher such as what happened in the late 90's.

I will continue the post......

[radlib1]

Basic economics also says that slavery is better than paid workers. Is that what you're saying? Is paying people in the Mariannas (a U.S. colony) less than union wages a good thing? Are you really advocating economic depravity?

Or are you just a Republican?

[Bladernr1001]

What?

Slavery involves coercive force. What private business has that power?

You make no sense.

[Liberal2]

You are either a loon or a troll. ["trolling loon"? Could be!]

Unions ensure workers get a fair share of the profits created through their labor. Capitalists invest money, workers invest their lives; capitalists can move teir money whenever they wish, workers are too old to get a comparable job.

Business are not simply "benefitting" from labor market conditions, they are actively creating them: Gates demanding unlimited H1B visas....US workers can not leave their US lives behind to make more money in (for example) Mexico or India.

Worker shortage in '90s? Bull. The unemployment numbers are not honest. The actual rate was twice as high as stated because 50% of those without jobs lost theirs long before the '90s and could not get comparable jobs if hired at all. You are a liar. At the peak of the '90s job "frenzy" the best job offer I could get 30% below my salary (MBA and Sr. programmer)

And if there is a shortage of skilled workers, business could do what they use to do: train new employees in apprentice programs.

[Bladernr1001]

So what is a fair share of the profits? And who determines that?

i am sure not all sectors experienced a shortage but many did. Sorry yours was not one of them at that particualr time. So whats you point?

Apprenticship still happens in many industries.

Thats the best you can do? Say data was lied about? Geeze.

[Hallucinocynic]

Blade, you have made an articulate but totally flawed argument. Using the automotive industry as your best example actually defeats your premise. Three factors are at work in the American automotive industry which better explain the loss of market share to foreign manufacturers: Availability and growing cost of, and competition for resource; noncompetitive labor practices; and dated or less attractive technology. Over the past four decades American mfrs have tragically tied themselves to trends that did not accurately forecast buyer tastes or buyer needs. What participation did the UAW have in making those internal decisions?

Unions are flawed, but the aggressive, bottom-line driven shareholder blocs - and company executives who are rewarded for employing draconian management techniques - are checked only through the collective bargaining process. Moreover, the loss of automotive jobs in the United States has promulgated the atrophy of that part of the manufacturing sector which, typically, employed almost as many in the aftermarket industry as in the automotive industry itself. Finally, the automotive industry in Japan and Korea employ well-paid workers; and Toyota, Volkswagen and several other notable foreign marques manufacture or assemble tens of thousands of cars inside the United States. Apparently, these companies have found a way to work with the unions.

[babylonandon]

Umm, if memory serves, the employees of most if not all of these foreign-tagged but US manufactured autos are NOT unionized. They never had to work with the unions.

[Rule Of Law]

Hey, we know already what will happen with Congress. Reid will bluster, Pelosi will threaten, a bunch of back benchers will get photo ops out of their principled stands, and then they will all cave to Bush like they always do!

Maybe you guys should be investigating how and what Bush has on the entire Congress that makes them his lap dog, because for a guy with a 29% approval and a Minority in Both Houses he sure acts like he's still holding all the cards!

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

I hope these two men who wrote this aren't supporting Hillary. Anyone who buys that she's against this agreement is foolish and amazingly naive.

[Bladernr1001]

I don't know if you guys noticed or not but the tarriffs in this agreement were more beneficial to the US than the other way around. Lowering tarriffs tends to create more jobs....basic economics.

You cannot repeal the laws of economics. When tarrifs are imposed....someone wins and someone loses. By opposing this you are probably making it more difficult for Columbians somewhere to get a job....or maybe for some US workers.

I suspect these guys are shills/owned for/by labor unions.

[Liberal2]

Tariffs protecting the US? Liar!

[PierreLeClerke]

I can think of at least 109 million reasons that the Senator from New York would be in sink with any agreement that would contribute to her contributors. And "my friends" thats the way it works in our sorry republic. "The best government $$$$$$$$$$ can buy." April 19th Philadelphia!

[metogamekun]

Is this another South America Chicago School/Friedmanism fiasco?

[LITU]

Without a doubt.

[RogerHWerner]

I agree witht his sentiment

[LITU]

"would greatly diminish our nation's reputation as a leader in the fight to end human rights abuses worldwide."

LMAO - at that point you lost me. Aren't we the nation that doesn't torture, so we ship the poor fools off to countries that do?

The whole goddamn Milton Friedman (condoned), consumer-capitalist ideology is abusive towards humans, and the very reason trade unionists are/were/have been killed, which was what your opening paragraph inferred.

[RogerHWerner]

In the US we don't usually off trade unionists but we do make every effort to make trade unions irrelevant (I'm sure both Congressman know all about Taft-Hartley Act aimed at curbing the power of unions?) or destroy them out right (no unions, no pesky trade unionists to worry about). Taft-Hartley gutted the union movement but it took another 30 years and Ronald Reagan to drive a final stake into the heart of the beast. Repeal Taft-Hartley and give unions power to actually fight for labor and we might see a resurgence in trade unionism.

Whatever, the Columbia FTA is bad news and it should be killed. If Bush thinks it's a grand idea that is justification for reasonable oposition.

[Indedave]

Come on, people. It is spelled Col-O-mbia.

[Balloonman]

What in the world is COLUMBIA to us? What are we getting for supporting the drug cartel on the other end of UPresidente Uribe? He wars on civility or is it the anarchy and rebellion the other way around? Something stinks in Denmark! Corruption. Uribe milking positon and power for . . . the MONEY interests I'd suppose. like what's new? Anywhere.

Is not COLUMBIA DRUG DRIVEN? Protection from and for protection. COLUMBIA! OH COLUMBIA! . Or what? I'm way off the facts, hyper exaggerate, flavor huh, of the region and times? Guaranteed, our taxpayer dollar is financing nefarious schemes, ours and theirs. Some ruin for somebody innocent, count on it. Doing what to make the world safer from SADDAM or somebody else?

OUR tax dollar fltering.into COLUMBIA INTELLIGENCE. Billions and bilions. As we spray cocaine crops, smuggle in weapons to the paramilitants and get a piece of the dope likely, indirect or not. Cool. But of course, COLUMBIA is strategic as any country we design on, give big to and thus whomever are beholding to us when we call in the chips. Columbia is an ancient, long, long term AmericanBusiness and Foreign Policy investment and experiment to work some of our power politc soul out of. Like another ethic we subvert in the name of good business in the rest of our investment nations. Hoohah!

[CruzDelSur]

President Alvaro [Scarface] Uribe and his family have had a long time relationshipwith the drug cartels. The president's father helicopter [aka the ghost helicopter] was found at the Tranquilandia cocaine lab.
(http://cbrayton.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/coronell-the-ghost-helicopter-did-too-belong-to-the-uribes/) Sorry but I'm not sure if the hyperlinks work here.

Famous drug lord Pablo Escobar truly admired A. Uribe
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:rpa39zRtSZcJ:www.narconews.com/Issue51/article3036.html+http://www.narconews.com/Issue51/article3036.html.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=opera [ This link was scrubed a few days ago from narconews]

There are picture of Uribe's brother Santiago with the drug-dealing clan Ochoa and Alvaro Uribe said he was taken a picture with Justo Pastor Perafán, another drug dealing lord currently in a U. S. prison [http://colombiaherald.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/uribes-defence-on-primetime-al-gore-rejected-me/]

Mario Uribe , the president's cusin, was a member of what is called Para-politics (members of Colombia's Congress who are controled by the Paramilitary) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7029389.stm

Although I can't find a link, Pablo Escobar's first cousin is an advisor t the Colombian President.

Can someone explain to me how is it that we are still doing buisness with them???

[CruzDelSur]

Narconews google cahe does not work. Here is a similar one http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=124582749&blogID=371463860

[richardmcnoggin]

Yes it is ColOmbia; and yes you have to remember that the union movement in this world is based in the Communist doctrine. Yes; they may have killed you there. Not here though, we are headed down the toilet of socialism here so slowly that it will overcome this country and take over before anyone knows whatn happened. Quote: .."The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
" Norman Thomas, American socialist....

[rinpochet]

Socialism isn't a bad thing. I believe the rule goes something like this; to each according to his need, from each according to his ability to give": Socialism isn't communism. Communism is political.

In Israel they have the kibbutz which are socialist and they apparently work very well.

[PierreLeClerke]

The Bushco have been dealing drugs since the late sixties. illegal drugs are a commodity worth billions annually. A commodity that Noriaga would be able to more fully describe the network of traders and players on the worldwide market if he were allowed to talk. Pull on Manuel's string and watch the Bush family values go up in dope smoke! They have never been able to say no to drugs, or any profit center commodity, legal or moral are not guidelines for this family. Ask the Nazi's about the relationships with the Bush clan.
Iran Contra was a cover for an enormous drug running operation in both directions., heroin from Afghanistan, and out of Iran, cocaine from Columbia flown out of Honduras. Panama was the banking center cleaning up the $$$$$$$$$. Reagan was just the dope they feed B.S. and kept in the closet, Mushroom! Don't be lazy America, do the research yourselves, many of the guys working this project are still alive. Follow the money.

[Indedave]

Follow this link for an alternative viewpoint from Monica Showalter at Investor's Business Daily that, IMHO, illustrates the cherry-picking of statistics and loose analysis offered here by Reps. Hare and Michaud. Colombia is the number one importer of U.S. produce in S. America, with total import payments to the U.S. of $18b/yr. What benefit exactly, do displaced American manufacturing workers get from punishing Colombia's "export-oriented sectors " mining, agriculture, textile manufacturing and food processing" of Colombia? It looks to me more likely that these workers would gain a lot more by building Caterpillars, Deere tractors, International harvesting machines and other assorted machinery to ship to them.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=292460600468367

[KHAAANNN]

Anyone who views the Fascist IBD as a source of impartial NEWS is either a moron or a lobbyist for a multi-national corporation. The people at IBD think that Hitler was a great guy, since he killed all the Commies and Trade Unionists. Prescott Bush (GW's grandpa) loved doing business with him, even AFTER we declared war on Germany. Remember, Mussolini defined "Fascism" as "The merging of the State and the Corporation", and stated that "first we get rid of the unions, then the political parties, then the courts" so that "the state and the corporations are free to run the country" which pretty much describes Colombia (and America is not far behind.)
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck............Cheney will shoot it.

[davidly]

And for goodness sake, don't get in his line of fire! If you can figure out where that is...

[speakeasy]

So, if this is already working, why would we need a trade deal? Ah... to lower prices and move American manufacturing there for the day when China is to expensive to deal with. How about we buy native Columbian resources and products and they buy native American products and services. The only thing CAFTA will do is lower pay, reduce liability, and pay a total disregard for the environment. They just want to make it look official...

[PierreLeClerke]

Presently the U.S. charges little or no tariffs on Columbian imports. U.S. imports to Columbia however are hit with high import fees the Columbian government leverages against our products.
Not a very compelling gesture on the part of a fair trading partner. Something deeper here to investigate I think.