Pelosi to Block Vote on Colombia

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: NYT/AP

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 9, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will change its rules so as to skirt a requirement that it vote on a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Pelosi says the House will vote on the rules change policy Thursday, effectively putting off a vote on a free trade agreement that is a key priority of the Bush administration.

''The president took his action. I will take mine tomorrow,'' Pelosi said.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Colombia.html?hp

[damntexdem]

1. Well, they COULD vote it down.

But this will do, too.

[Robbien]

10. The GOP plan was to undermine Dems

and blame them for the bad economy

per
http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20080407/columbia_trade_war_begins_says_prominent_dc_insider

Now Pelosi & Company must decide whether to take the risk of adding to US and world market jitters by handing up the first-ever defeat of a proposed trade deal under Fast Track...that's the bet being made by the White House.

TRADE...here are the stakes now in play: the Congress has never...never...defeated a trade agreement submitted under the Fast Track rules. Colombia FTA may be the first time.

And if the Democrats do vote this deal down, the geopolitical/economic impact may be far out of proportion to anything in the deal itself.

The White House knows the risks, of course. It knows that the "globalization debate" being played out this year has become a toxic waste dump, and that forcing a fight, even on a deal as strategically important as Colombia, runs the risk of a loss with impact far beyond the economics of US-Colombia trade.

The White House made a point of again offering what it hopes will be the carrot of reform of Trade Adjustment Assistance. The President's message today, an informed source explains, "contains conciliatory things we've never said before about TAA reform, and we used this different language intentionally."

As noted, the stakes are high for the Democrats, as well. The US and the world economy is jittery, and perhaps still headed for a real panic. A first-ever defeat of a Fast-Track protected trade deal would be seen by the global markets as a portent of coming protectionism and perhaps worse...and how would that impact on world financial stability?

These are among the reasons why the ink was not dry on the President's official letter of transmittal before each side accused the other of violating both principle and policy.

[Peace Patriot]

16. Nope, denial of the Colombia 'free' trade deal will be a very positive sign that

the U.S. has not gone totally fascist, that there is still some "will of the people" left in our democracy, and that POSITIVE economic policies that support social justice and democracy at home and abroad are still possible in the U.S.

It is the vast majority of ordinary people who create wealth--with their work, with their skills and their willingness to follow the rules, and with their purchases. If the vast majority of people are discontent, wealth can still be extracted from them, for a time, at great cost in the ultimate disintegration of the economic system. What we are seeing now is the end result of extremely destructive policies, by people who have no understanding of where wealth comes from. The question is: Can U.S. democracy turn this around and restore an economy that bootstraps the poor, that fosters a healthy middle class and that protects the work force--the real producers of wealth?

The Colombian 'free' trade deal is the last gasp of this Bushite, corporate/fascist destruction of the wealth-creators--the poor and middle class--in this country, and in other countries. It rewards a fascist elite in Colombia that handles its "labor problem" by mass murder of labor leaders, political leftists, small peasant farmers, human rights workers and journalists. A putrid elite with blood on its hands. It is furthermore intended by the Bushites as economic warfare against DEMOCRATIC countries--countries where union leaders and other peoples' advocates don't suffer torture and death for exercising their civil rights--countries like Venezuela that oppress no one, and that hold elections that put our own to shame for their transparency, as well as putting Colombia to shame with the openness and safety of political activism in Venezuela, compared to the constant threat of death for leftist political activists in Colombia; and countries like Bolivia, which has elected its first indigenous president, Evo Morales, in a largely indigenous country; and countries like Ecuador and Argentina, allied with Venezuela and Bolivia on issues such as social justice.

The Bushites want to punish, destabilize and overthrow these good governments--in favor of the rule of rightwing death squads and drug lords, as in Colombia, whose so-called president was the Medellin Cartel's go-to guy in his early career (and is now the go-to guy for the Bush Cartel).

Read Donald Rumsfeld and know what the Colombian 'free' trade deal is all about--it's about destroying good governments and rewarding a really bad one, and, in my opinion, is preparation for Oil War II: South America--which is why the supposedly retired Rumsfeld is so interested in the matter:

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

The other thing that this 'free trade' deal is about is environmentally destructive corporate biofuel production--Monsanto agriculture--and continued brutal exploitation by entities like Chiquita, Drummond Coal and Occidental Petroleum. The murderous, corrupt, failed U.S. "war on drugs" clears the peasant farmers--the food producers--off the land, so that the big drug lords and the Monsantos of this world can move in. 'Free' trade with Colombia means out-of-control corporate rule in Colombia--in what is now, and will continue to be, a 'free fire zone' against uppity workers. That is the model that the Bushites (and collusive Democrats) want to see throughout the region. The leftist governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina stand in their way--and are often allied with the leftist governments of Brazil, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Chile in seeking regional self-determination and a new path for South America, away from U.S. domination and exploitation. And it just so happens that the same governments that are leading this revolution have lots and lots of oil.

The world is watching, all right. The world is watching to see if good government and good economic policy will prevail in the U.S. It is watching to see if brutal exploitation by global corporate predators can be brought under democratic control, for the good of all. Are we finished, as a democratic people? Can the Bush Junta cram one more outrage down our throats--'free' trade with fascist Colombia, a country with one of the worst human rights record on earth?

If we can stop it, then maybe there is hope for this country and for the world economy.

[OhioChick]

2. With so many losing jobs....

Everyone is watching this one.

[Life Long Dem]

3. A can of worms opened up.

[DCKit]

4. Finally, something that resonates with Nancy.

Now if we can figure out how to make the Constitution matter as much....

[JDPriestly]

5. The programs intended to help those whose jobs are displaced

are never enough. But at least Nancy Pelosi is recognizing that the trade agreements are disrupting the job market here. That is a step in the right direction, but a very small one.

If we don't get the Republicans out of office this year, our country is done for. Our nation will not survive if the Republicans and their corporate friends continue to pillage it.

[EFerrari]

6. Not to mention, Uribe is a killer who preys on organizers. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

34. Unfortunately, there are a few anal Americans who don't seem to recognize killing workers is wrong!

They love to argue with you about whether or not they agree jobs are actually jeopardized by the FTAA, and couldn't care less about the fact actual working people in Colombia have been getting slaughtered, some publicly, some after being tortured, for daring to beg for better working conditions for Colombian workers who have been exploited brutally by multinationals attracted to Colombia for the near slave labor conditions, in addition to the chance to nearly steal Colombia's material resources, since they are not required to protect workers and the environment:

Labor Gears Up Campaign Against Colombia Free Trade Pact
Workday Minnesota

Thursday 10 April 2008

Washington - Organized labor, joined by several congressional Democrats, has geared up its campaign to stop the proposed U.S.-Colombia "free trade" agreement.

But they don't have much time. President Bush submitted the pact April 7 under "fast-track" rules that call for an up-or-down House vote within 60 days and a Senate vote within 90 days. No amendments are allowed.

Nevertheless, AFL-CIO Legislative Director Bill Samuel predicted Bush faces "an uphill battle" to get the Colombia FTA approved.

The pact would dump all tariffs and other trade restrictions between the U.S. and the South American nation. But while the pact itself has weak labor rights language in its text - as opposed to other Bush trade pacts which had none - the implementing legislation has none. That legislation would let the pact take effect, and that's what Congress will vote on without the possibility of changing it.

Union leaders said the big problem with the Colombia FTA is that it opens the U.S. market to a government that has let right-wing paramilitaries - some of them paid by U.S.-based multinational corporations - murder unionists at will for at least a decade. Some 2,584 unionists have been assassinated in Colombia during the last 15 years.

More:
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/041008LA.shtml

[ToeBot]

7. Why do I get the impression this is just a feint? Why not kill the agreement outright?

It's not like the Democrats would try to do something sneaky, especially with regard to trade deals.

[Igel]

9. Because death by negligence is blameless;

death by vote isn't.

Moreover, she might be concerned that it would pass, making for great political embarrassment. Or she's concerned that the debate might be politically damaging, or facts she believes are counterfactual may come out, which would also be politically damaging. Can't have politically damaging things happen; not prudent.

[Judi Lynn]

8. White House Hammers US Rep Pelosi Over Colombia Trade Deal

White House Hammers US Rep Pelosi Over Colombia Trade Deal



WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The White House continued to clash with Democrats over the Colombia trade agreement, chastising House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for looking to avoid a vote on the legislation this year.

"There are many in the Democratic party who would like to kill this deal," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday.

Pelosi will introduce a procedural change Thursday that would remove the timetable under which Congress has to take up trade bills it receives from the White House. Under trade promotion authority, Congress must take an up or down vote on trade bills within 90 legislative days.

Congress received the Colombia bill on Tuesday.

Perino called Pelosi's plans "unprecedented in the history of negotiating trade bills."

"We think this is an awful precedent," Perino said.

http://www.international.na">~~~~ link ~~~~

[NMLobo]

26. Dana

If you think it's an awful precedent then it must be great for America and the rest of the world.

[Judi Lynn]

11. House Democrats to table trade deal

House Democrats to table trade deal

From Deirdre Walsh
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi said House Democrats plan to change the rules on how Congress handles trade agreements to avoid a vote on a controversial free trade pact with Colombia backed by President Bush.

Bush sent the trade agreement to Congress Tuesday. Under trade-negotiating rules, Congress must vote on the pact within 90 days and cannot make changes to it.

Pelosi, D-California, said House Democrats will remove the timeline requirement.

The move effectively puts off any congressional consideration of the pact.

Pelosi said she pressed Bush in a phone conversation this week to hold off on sending the agreement to Congress. Democrats have argued that Congress should first take up separate legislation that would help protect American workers who lose their jobs because of the trade deal.

More:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/09/house.colombia/index.html

[Zorro]

12. The trade agreement significantly reduces tariffs on US goods exported to Colombia

so it will actually have the effect of increasing US jobs.

I think shelving the trade agreement is more political theater than reasonable policy.

[Judi Lynn]

13. Brain Dead Trade Debate, Huffington Post

Brain Dead Trade Debate
Posted April 9, 2008 | 09:00 AM (EST)

~snip~
The arguments for the trade accord are mostly insulting. The Colombians will benefit greatly, we're told, although their goods already come into America duty free. The US will benefit greatly, although any increased trade with Colombia will be a rounding error in our trade accounts.

It's not really about trade at all, we're told, it's a question of national security, designed to bolster an ally against the hated Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and to counter the rising anti-American populism in Latin America. But the anti-American populism in Latin America is a backlash stemming from the calamitous failure of the "Washington consensus" that the trade accord expresses. And the most likely effect of the trade accord, as NAFTA demonstrated, will be for heavily subsidized US food exports to displace to peasants from their lands, undermine wages in the cities, and reward financial elites. This will only strengthen the rebellion in Colombia, feed the drug economy, and bolster the backlash to failed US policies.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/brain-dead-trade-debate_b_95786.html

[classysassy]

14. Fear not

Shrub,she'll cave in.

[Zorro]

15. USA Today endorses the free trade pact with Colombia

<snip>

...

Nor is there a good reason why Obama, Clinton and other leading Democrats should oppose a proposed free trade agreement with Colombia, set for a vote this year, considering that:


* Colombia would get nothing from it other than the permanent extension of the status quo. That's because most of its products already come into this country duty-free thanks to a decision two decades ago to promote legitimate businesses in an Andean region rife with cocaine.


* Most U.S. exporters to Colombia would see their tariffs, now ranging from 7% to 80%, slashed to zero. For a company such as Illinois-based Caterpillar, a major exporter to Colombia, that could mean a $200,000 savings on a piece of heavy equipment.


* The government of Colombia is a solid ally and a counterweight to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. It has accepted decades of American arguments that free markets and trade are the best engines of growth and antidotes to extremism.

Labor leaders point to violence against union workers as a justification to delay a deal indefinitely. This is a red herring. Colombia is an unusually violent place — because of everything from criminals to drug cartels and the Marxist terror group known as FARC — but evidence that union members are victimized more than others is thin.

...
<snip>

Read USA Today's editorial in its entirety at: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/our-view-on-fre.html#more

Seems like passing this agreement would result in net benefits for both countries. Sounds reasonable to me.

[fascisthunter]

17. GOOD.... Screw Free Trade. Call it Slave Trade for Labor (nt)

[websmith]

18. What Will this Accomplish

What will this political battle at Disfunction Junction
accomplish?

"You can't push me around."

"Can too."

"Cannot."

"Can too."

The Democrats would obviously like to wait until after the
election to pass this. They want to be able to say they
blocked it for election purposes. The Republicans want it
passed, too, but they want it passed now so the Democrats
don't have a leg to stand on.

In case you haven't noticed, Congress no longer has any power
except to play these little games. Bush will just sign it
without Congressional approval. 

[samsingh]

19. is this good or bad?

[Zorro]

20. I think

it is not good. After all, the US has free trade agreements with a number of Latin American countries, and I haven't heard of any that have regretted them.

Many of the complaints are more political; a lot of people don't like Uribe for a variety of reasons, but one major reason is that he is an ally with the US and has close ties with this administration. Uribe is also not a friend of Hugo Chavez, who seems to get a lot of sympathy from certain segments, which is also a source of the complaints against him. And Uribe is extremely popular within Colombia, which also drives the nay-sayers over the edge.

[JohnnyCougar]

21. Uribe has high approval ratings because his administration has killed those that disapprove.

But lets just ignore human rights. Let's sign a free trade agreement with the worst human rights abuser in the Western Hemisphere.

[Zorro]

25. Uribe has exceptionally high approval rates

because he is proving successful in combatting FARC. Don't you support that objective?

The Colombians, who have suffered from FARC's destructive and destabilizing actions for the past 40 years, certainly do. In fact, latest polls have his support at over 80%.

And isn't Cuba still part of the Western Hemisphere? Are you claiming that Colombia is worse than Cuba when it comes to human rights?

[Judi Lynn]

32. Where are the death squads in Cuba? That was during Fulgencio Batista's rule of terror.

Where are the journalists and workers who are KILLED by the death squads which have ties leading right into the cabinet of Álvaro Uribe?

Why is it Álvaro Uribe targets human rights workers, journalists, political activists who then start getting death threats from the death squads?

Surely you take DU'ers for fools.

[Zorro]

35. So are you saying

That the Castro government does not engage in human rights abuses? That the Uribe government is a worse human rights abuser?

No, I don't take DUers as fools; I think that most are capable of having honest debates on real issues and facts, and are interested in intelligent policies that promote mutual US and international interests.

The reports I read are that domestic violence has markedly decreased in Colombia since Uribe has taken office, and that is the source of his great popularity. A democratically elected president having over 80% approval is quite remarkable, but you only respond with yet another hysterical sturm und drang screed that avoids responding to the question I posed.

That's not debating the issues; bombarding the message threads with jingoistic and uncorroborated statements does not necessarily constitute the "truth" on the subject.

I have suggested that you should actually spend some time in South America to give you a broader perspective of the issues; "seeing" the world only through news releases published on the internet from dubious sources with undetermined agendas is hardly going to give one an accurate understanding of what's really going on.

[Judi Lynn]

37. Jingoistic, uncorroborated statements concerning Uribe, who just bombed and invaded Ecuador?

Is that right?

Here's a completely recent item you should have seen, from Human Rights Watch to Álvaro Uribe:

Colombia: NGOs Press Uribe to Address Wave of Violence Against Rights Defenders, Unionists
Uribe Adviser’s Statements Contribute to Climate of Intolerance That Fosters Violence
(Washington, DC, March 26, 2008) – Recent statements by a close adviser to Colombian President Álvaro Uribe contributed to “a climate of political intolerance that fosters violence” shortly before a wave of killings, attacks, and threats against trade unionists and rights activists, a group of 22 international human rights organizations said in a joint letter to Uribe today.

Four Colombian trade unionists – some of whom were reportedly associated with a March 6 demonstration protesting state and paramilitary human rights violations – were killed between March 4 and March 11. Members of human rights organizations have been subject to physical attacks, harassment, office break-ins and thefts of files in the past weeks. More than two dozen organizations and individuals received death threats purporting to come from paramilitary groups in the capital, Bogota.

Shortly before the attacks, presidential adviser José Obdulio Gaviria made a series of statements on national radio linking renowned victims’ representative Ivan Cepeda and other organizers of the March 6 protest to the notoriously abusive guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). On February 11, one day after Gaviria first made the statements, the supposedly demobilized United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) paramilitary group released a statement echoing Gaviria’s allegations.

“Baseless comments such as these are profoundly damaging to Colombian democracy and human rights, and place those against whom they are made in direct danger of violence,” said the NGO coalition in a letter to President Uribe. “These statements stigmatize the legitimate work of thousands of human rights defenders, trade unionists, and victims, and can have a chilling effect on the exercise of rights to freedom of expression and free association.”

The coalition of NGOs called on President Uribe to:


Publicly disavow statements by Gaviria and others that linked the protest organizers to guerillas;

Reject the recent wave of attacks and reaffirm his government’s support for the protection of the legitimate work of trade unionists and other human rights defenders; and

Ensure a prompt and impartial investigation into each of the recent attacks, hold those responsible to account, and take decisive action to dismantle paramilitary groups and break their links to state officials.


The letter, a copy of which was also sent to the US government, pointed out that “this string of threats and attacks calls directly into question the effectiveness of the paramilitary demobilization process.”

The violence comes as the Bush administration is aggressively pressing the US Congress to ratify a Free Trade Agreement with Colombia. “In the debate over the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, President Uribe has repeatedly claimed that he is protecting workers’ rights,” said the NGOs. “But the fact that President Uribe has allowed his presidential adviser to continue his harassment, even while trade unionists and rights defenders are being killed and threatened, suggests a real disconnect between Uribe’s discourse and his actions.”

The letter was signed by Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, Refugees International, Lutheran World Relief, Washington Office on Latin America, Jesuit Conference, Latin America Working Group, Center for International Policy, US Office on Colombia, Mercy Corps, United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), Friends Committee on National Legislation, Witness for Peace, Mennonite Central Committee, Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, AFRODES USA, Conference of Major Superiors of Men, Colombia Human Rights Committee, Washington DC, Church of the Brethren Witness/Washington Office.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/03/26/colomb18353.htm

As you're well aware, or should be, DU'ers are familiar with the "false positives" used by the Colombian military when it slaughters citizens, then arranges "evidence" from its "kits" to create the appearance the murder victims were FARC. It was posted here in a surprise article from the Washington Post, which actually COVERED this filth and reported it. This practise has been going on a long, long time.

Paramilitaries, which serve as an adjunct to the military have been doing it forever. Don't even say the paramilitaries are deactivated, as there are reports from A-I concerning the fact they have NOT disbanded, but rather regrouped under new names.
Same chain saw torturers and massacre monsters, still in business. All under Álvaro Uribe's loving gaze.

Yes, I'm saying this is far, far, FAR worse than any part of Cuba's history after the revolution. As a marcher in the parade (which was not covered by the press to any respectable degree in Colombia, the participants being threatened, and 6 KILLED by death squads) said, "the paramilitaries don't take hostages when they have prisoners, they cut them into pieces."

We've also been watching the evidence build concerning investigations of Uribe's government, his political party, etc. as time goes by. There's no way you can deny what Uribe's relationship has been, when your own government did a completely damning report on him in 1991.

As for not having traveled to South America, are you really saying people can't know what they have not physically seen? Is that right? Why would anyone bother with education, then, since it's all information someone else gave you.

I started becoming acquainted with a Colombian citizen years ago who had left Colombia, with absolutely no regrets, who was the first person who ever informed me about the death squads. I had never heard of this before. I continued to hear his thoughts, observations for years after that, long before I ever started researching. I trust he had more important things to do than go around telling people complete whoppers just for the hell of it. He maintained his beliefs, was not interested in converting anyone to any point of view whatsoever. Other Colombians he knew surely seemed to know what he was talking about when they spoke with him in front of ordinary Americans. They seemed to be in total agreement.

Maybe they were all lying. You never know.

I'm trusting you do actually know everything, and the rest of us should simply give up, and wait for your instructions!

In the meantime, feel free to post links to your sources of information you think could help us restructure our perceptions.

[Judi Lynn]

33. Uribe's high ratings? How about the ratings given Uribe from the U.S. Department of Defense?

U.S. INTELLIGENCE LISTED COLOMBIAN PRESIDENT URIBE AMONG
"IMPORTANT COLOMBIAN NARCO-TRAFFICKERS" IN 1991

Then-Senator "Dedicated to Collaboration with the Medellín Cartel at High Government Levels"

Confidential DIA Report Had Uribe Alongside Pablo Escobar, Narco-Assassins

Uribe "Worked for the Medellín Cartel" and was a "Close Personal Friend of Pablo Escobar"


Washington, D.C., 1 August 2004 - Then-Senator and now President Álvaro Uribe Vélez of Colombia was a "close personal friend of Pablo Escobar" who was "dedicated to collaboration with the Medellín cartel at high government levels," according to a 1991 intelligence report from U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) officials in Colombia. The document was posted today on the website of the National Security Archive, a non-governmental research group based at George Washington University.

Uribe's inclusion on the list raises new questions about allegations that surfaced during Colombia's 2002 presidential campaign. Candidate Uribe bristled and abruptly terminated an interview in March 2002 when asked by Newsweek reporter Joseph Contreras about his alleged ties to Escobar and his associations with others involved in the drug trade. Uribe accused Contreras of trying to smear his reputation, saying that, "as a politician, I have been honorable and accountable."

The newly-declassified report, dated 23 September 1991, is a numbered list of "the more important Colombian narco-traffickers contracted by the Colombian narcotic cartels for security, transportation, distribution, collection and enforcement of narcotics operations." The document was released by DIA in May 2004 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Archive in August 2000.

The source of the report was removed by DIA censors, but the detailed, investigative nature of the report -- the list corresponds with a numbered set of photographs that were apparently provided with the original -- suggests it was probably obtained from Colombian or U.S. counternarcotics personnel. The document notes that some of the information in the report was verified "via interfaces with other agencies."

President Uribe -- now a key U.S. partner in the drug war -- "was linked to a business involved in narcotics activities in the United States" and "has worked for the Medellín cartel," the narcotics trafficking organization led by Escobar until he was killed by Colombian government forces in 1993. The report adds that Uribe participated in Escobar's parliamentary campaign and that as senator he had "attacked all forms of the extradition treaty" with the U.S.

More:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/index.htm

[ronnie624]

31. The opposition isn't just political.

For instance, I don't think it's a good idea to flood the Colombian market with US subsidized agricultural products. I think it will force Colombian farmers into bankruptcy and poverty, by undercutting their ability to sell their produce.

But that's what this trade agreement is for, I believe: consolidating control of resources, economies and labor by big corporations.

That's just one reason to oppose the FTA. There are many others, none of which have anything to do with Hugo Chavez, and everything to do with transferring more wealth and political capital from the hands of the working class, into the hands of the ruling elites. Opposition is more about social justice.

It isn't progressives who are obsessed with the cult of personality.

[Zorro]

36. I understand your concern

but I don't see how the US subsidized agricultural products are going to flood the Colombian market, because as I have mentioned before, it isn't as if Colombians do their shopping at Kroger. They go to their local vegetable markets, and I hardly think US agribusinesses will supplant products found in those produce stalls.

But let's take a look at potential products:

Corn: With the high price of corn in US markets because of its use for biofuels, it's not as if it will be cost-effective to export it to Colombia. After all, the Andes is the source of both corn and potatoes, and are dietary staples. I really don't think that Colombians would flock to US corn or potatoes just because they're grown in the US.

Fruits: There are a variety of tropical fruits that aren't even grown in the US that are found in South America. I don't think there's much competition from US sources there. Other citrus fruits (oranges, limes) are grown in such abundance that they aren't threatened either.

Coffee: Uh, I don't think so.

Bananas: Nope.

So what kind of US foodstuffs do you think would dominate their markets? I really have a hard time coming up with any, other than non-essential things like pop tarts and pork rinds.

I'm interested in learning whether there are real threats to Colombian agricultural production, but all I seem to read are only generic statements that condemn the proposed trade agreement that don't provide any objective analysis of the impact. If this type of analysis does not exist, then the claims are at least dubious.

[ronnie624]

38. Not only do Latin American countries already import U.S. produce,

agriculture in Latin America itself, including coffee, bananas and corn, is dominated by U.S. corporations, so I really don't know what to make of your post.

Here are some articles that others may find of interest.

Citing possible harmful effects on the poor, Latin American bishops pledged to help grass-roots groups have an effective voice in free trade agreements being promoted in the Western Hemisphere.

As currently structured, free trade agreements tend to favor multinational companies, the economic elites in Latin America and the industrialized countries, said a statement by the Department of Justice and Solidarity of the Latin American bishops’ council.

Landless rural farmworkers, small businessmen, women, youths, the elderly and the handicapped often lose out under such agreements, said the document.

The four-page statement was written after an Aug. 10-13 meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil, between Latin American bishops and economic and trade officials of several governments. It was organized by the bishops’ council, known by its Spanish acronym as CELAM. The statement was made public Sept. 8 at CELAM headquarters in Bogota.

<http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=643>

NAFTA, dubbed a “death sentence” for Mexico’s campesinos and Indigenous Peoples, has led to strong and sustained resistance from a broad spectrum of Mexico’s population. It was one of the catalysts for the Zapatista uprising. Since it came into effect, cheap, subsidized US corn has flooded the market, sold at prices below the cost of production, with which campesinos cannot compete. This has led to massive displacement, poverty, and hunger. Meanwhile, under NAFTA’s investment chapter, corporations have sued all three signatory governments for policies which they claim interfere with their actual or potential investments, and rights to make profit.

*******

In the 1823 Monroe Doctrine the US announced that the Western Hemisphere was its sphere of influence. Any attempt on the part of European powers “to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere” was deemed “dangerous to our peace and safety”. This was reinforced in 1904 with the Roosevelt Corollary which held that the US had the right as a “civilized nation” to intervene in its southern neighbours’ affairs as “an international police power”. Bush’s trade agenda, and US military aid to Colombia and Mexico to support US geopolitical and corporate interests continue this imperialist legacy.

*******

A recent Zogby International poll found that 87 percent of Latin American opinion-makers disapproved of Bush's policy in the region. A Latinobarometro poll found that nearly a third of Latin Americans had a negative image of the US - a twofold increase since 2000. These tensions remained at January’s Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico.

*******

As Chilean farmer Nicolas Garcia told the Washington Times (17/06/03), “It's a case of the biggest and strongest eating the smallest. We just cannot compete with U.S. agricultural subsidies.”

<http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-01/31choudry.cfm>

Aside from Chávez-inspired anti-neoliberal campaigns and the relative minority of economists who feel that free trade does not automatically register a win-win situation, most economists are receptive to concepts associated with 'free trade' such as high export-driven growth, mounting foreign investment, and economic modernization.

These aspects are highly inviting to conservative business interests and orthodox economists who are dominant forces behind the Latin American governments presently negotiating FTAs with the United States. However, the alleged benefits that come with free trade deals need to be juxtaposed with the far less glamorous realities being faced daily by the majority of Latin American countries that continue to lack the physical infrastructure, as well as strong democratic institutions, to guarantee that economic success will spill over to the region's most disadvantaged areas.

However, government representatives would be wise to exercise caution, because FTAs are not always one-way tickets to long-term stability. In fact, recent Latin American history has indicated that abruptly opening vulnerable local markets can accentuate already grave domestic social problems.

The typical scenario found throughout the region ritualistically portrays a sharp reduction of tariffs by a Latin American country, followed immediately by a wave of U.S. exports that can be counted on to flood the domestic market, and in turn, end up shutting down what has now become non-competitive domestic production.

The experience has been that many Latin American markets have proved to be too weak to compete with a highly-subsidized U.S. economy, in spite of benefiting from a competitive advantage offered by cheap wages. It thus becomes pertinent to illustrate the drawbacks that derive from these FTAs, often accentuated by poor representational skills on the part of Latin American negotiation teams, who turn out to be losers in the process more often than not.

<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0712/S00411.htm>

[Judi Lynn]

39. Thanks for your great links. Well worth saving. n/t

[Zorro]

41. Interesting post

My point was that a FTA with Colombia is not going to result in significantly increasing poverty and starvation in Colombia, which seems to be one of the phony themes being promoted to denounce the FTA. Cheap food will remain plentiful.

A good overview of FTAs and their effects can be found at :http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL31356.pdf

I do acknowledge US corporate presence in Latin American agriculture, but I think that's a good thing: they establish and enforce sanitary and quality standards that might otherwise be ignored. One can easily see this by the way the South American banana plantations cultivate and wrap the fruit while still on the trees to protect it for the market.

The US is not the only nation that establishes FTAs with other countries; a number of Latin American countries actively pursue FTAs with the EU, Asian countries, and between themselves, which would seem to be bad policy if such agreements were not in their own best interests. The recent US FTA with Chile is a case in point: US exports increased 150% from 2003 to 2006, and Chilean exports to the US increased 158% during that same time. I think that's a net benefit for both countries.

Certainly there are economic displacements when more efficient producers are introduced to new markets, but it's a responsibility of the impacted governments to assist the displaced workers. If a farmer cannot compete in the marketplace, then I would assert his fortunes were already marginal to begin with, and should be in another line of work.

[eridani]

22. A good time to call and reinforce the backbone of your congresscritters

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040908F.shtml

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Wednesday that Democrats will use House rules to prevent a vote on the controversial Colombia free trade agreement.

Pelosi said Democrats decided in a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday morning to vote on a rule this week to postpone consideration of the controversial trade deal. Pelosi predicted the trade agreement would fail otherwise.

"The rules of the House govern the proceedings in the House of Representatives," Pelosi told reporters.

President Bush sent legislation implementing the deal to Congress on Tuesday in an effort to force a vote on the deal, which is opposed by the AFL-CIO and other labor unions because of violence in Colombia against union organizers.

The deal was signed last summer before the so-called fast-track law expired. Trade deals sent to Congress under fast-track rules cannot be amended, and must be voted on within 90 legislative days.


Contacts: Jessica Walker Beaumont: [phone]
Natalia Cardona [phone]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 9, 2008

QUAKER ORGANIZATION SAYS COLOMBIA TRADE DEAL WILL INCREASE VIOLENCE
New Report Examines Intersections of Commerce and Conflict

PHILADELPHIA, PA – The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker international peace and justice organization, today expressed concern over the Bush administration’s decision to force a congressional vote on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

“Approving this agreement will perpetuate the violent intersections of commerce and conflict in Colombia that have already resulted in human rights violations and continued humanitarian crises, with Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities hardest hit,” said Natalia Cardona , who coordinates the Quaker organization’s work on Colombia-related policy matters in the United States.

The AFSC’s new report, The Violent Intersections of Commerce and Conflict: Examining the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement and Plan Colombia offers a serious examination of the FTA and Plan Colombia , including detailed policy recommendations. http://www.tradeandwar.org/connections.html>

According to the Quaker organization, the Colombian government prioritizes military security, with support from the U.S. government through Plan Colombia , for the country to guarantee private investment and contends that this strategy will bring personal security for its people. “In reality, the result is increased militarization and the types of private investment, such as natural resource extraction and development of cash crops, which actually escalate the conflict and insecurity,” Cardona said. “These policies are carried out at the expense of social investment in immediate human needs such as education and healthcare,” she added.

“Policy makers need to recognize that the roots of the conflict in Colombia are based on racial, political, economic, and social inequalities that the FTA will exacerbate, not diminish,” said Cardona.

Yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) received the U.S.-Colombia FTA from the Administration. The action started the 90-day clock that ensures the trade pact will be voted on before Congress adjourns this year. Congressional leadership has called the President’s action “counter-productive,” insisting continued labor violence in Colombia and failure to renew trade adjustment assistance to those who have lost their jobs due to trade must be addressed first.

“The intersections of trade and war in Colombia have already proven widely destructive and deadly to the human rights and lives of Indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations,” said Jessica Walker Beaumont, a trade specialist with the AFSC. “The FTA’s promotion of even greater power and protection for dominant economic interests will only serve to deepen—and legitimize—the agreement’s negative effects,” she added.

“ Colombia already has 3.8 million internally displaced people,” said Beaumont . “We have seen in the results of NAFTA, which failed to promote sustainable development in Mexico and caused displacement of two million Mexican farmers, that this free trade model is a mistake.”

In addition to its opposition to the proposed trade agreement, the American Friends Service Committee has long opposed Plan Colombia , which has provided significant amounts of military aid to the South American country. “AFSC joins people all over the United States who are calling for international trade and investment systems that respect and promote human dignity, ensure the development and well-being of people in all nations, foster gender and racial equity and lead to environmental sustainability,” Beaumont concluded.

[Judi Lynn]

23. It's hard to overlook what has already been learned the hard way about NAFTA,

although there are occassional attempts to claim it has been beneficial, incredibly enough.

From your article:

“Policy makers need to recognize that the roots of the conflict in Colombia are based on racial, political, economic, and social inequalities that the FTA will exacerbate, not diminish,” said Cardona.
(snip)

“The intersections of trade and war in Colombia have already proven widely destructive and deadly to the human rights and lives of Indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations,” said Jessica Walker Beaumont, a trade specialist with the AFSC. “The FTA’s promotion of even greater power and protection for dominant economic interests will only serve to deepen—and legitimize—the agreement’s negative effects,” she added.

“ Colombia already has 3.8 million internally displaced people,” said Beaumont . “We have seen in the results of NAFTA, which failed to promote sustainable development in Mexico and caused displacement of two million Mexican farmers, that this free trade model is a mistake.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glad to see your link includes the talking points:

In Colombia the FTA will:

• Undermine human rights and fuel the fires of conflict. Colombia is still a country at war. Its record on human rights is dismal. Attacks on civil society, union leaders, Afro-Colombians and Indigenous people continue with impunity. The FTA will deepen the economic disparity, which is a root cause of the conflict, and diminish human rights.
  
  
• Destroy small farmers. The agreement will favor only a small sector of Colombia’s large industrial farmers who export to the U.S. Overall income for small farmers would drop by more than 50%, whipping them out as happened in Mexico where 1.3 million farmers have been displaced since NAFTA. Farmers forced off land will add to Colombia’s 3.8 million internally displaced people, which is already second only to the Sudan, and disproportionately impacts Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities.
  
  
• Harm poor consumers. A corporate monopoly on basic grains as a result of the FTA could provoke a steep price climb in food staples, as occurred in Mexico in the case of tortilla as a result of NAFTA.
  
  
• Lock in corporate take over of Indigenous and Afro-Colombian territories. The internal conflict has disproportionately displaced Afro-Colombian and Indigenous peoples from their resource-rich, ancestral territories, violating their constitutional and legal rights. Laws put in place in anticipation of the FTA to attract investment dismantle these legal rights.  For example, the Rural Development Law allows displaced people’s land that is claimed by corporate interest and their armed backers to gain legal title if occupied for five years. FTA investment rules will make it too costly to reverse these legal reforms.
  
  
• Harm workers and environment. Colombia is the most dangerous country in the world for union and labor organizers. There is little that the labor chapter can do to address the continued violence and impunity in the country. Moreover, the government has demonstrated little will to promote the labor laws and policies which are necessary for the full exercise of the international core labor rights.
  
  
• Hinder access to life-saving medicines. People in developing countries need affordable access to essential medicines, not only for pandemic diseases like HIV/AIDS, but for a whole variety of serious health conditions. The Colombia FTA undermines the right to affordable medicines. This will further weaken the Colombian health system that only covers 10% of Afro-Colombians.
  
  
• Increase the burden on women, children, and the poor. The FTA promotes the privatization and deregulation of essential services such as water, healthcare and education. As rates increase, these services become less accessible, women and the poor.
  
  
• Undermine U.S. and Colombian sovereignty. Like NAFTA, this FTA allows corporations to sue governments that pass environmental and public health laws that might reduce corporate profits.
  
  
• Threaten the Amazon and wildlife. The FTA will stimulate an increase in logging and other extraction projects in the Colombian Amazon rain forest that mostly reside in Afro-Colombian and Indigenous territories. This will further endanger the lungs of the globe and precious species.
  
  
• Pirate traditional knowledge. The FTA will pave the way for large pharmaceutical and agribusiness corporations to patent traditional knowledge, seeds, and life forms. This opens the door to bio-piracy of the Andean-Amazon region and threatens the ecological, medicinal and cultural heritage of Afro-Colombians and Indigenous peoples.

In the U.S. the FTA will:

• Increase drug trafficking. Colombia is the world’s largest producer of cocaine. Corporate monopoly over Colombia’s basic grain market will leave some small farmers with no other alternative than to join the lucrative drug trade.
  
  
• Increase forced immigration to the U.S. Almost all people everywhere want to stay in their home country. However U.S. government economic and military policies are a critical factor in uprooting people from their homes and livelihoods. In the context of 3.8 million internally displaced, the FTA will increase forced migration abroad and to the U.S.
  
  
• Expand export-driven agriculture. The FTA benefits U.S. corporate agribusiness and industrial farms, accelerating agricultural consolidation and further undermining family farmers in the U.S. and in developing countries.

http://www.tradeandwar.org/connections/talking-points.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for the important information. Clearly a lot of people are uninformed or are attempting to mislead people who are, and we all could surely use some facts on this.

[Zorro]

27. Talking points are not facts

There is a difference.

What I read is a lot of presumptions that are cobbled together to arrive at worst-case conclusions. For example, bullet 3 "Harm poor consumers". There's some blather about "corporate monopolies" that "could provoke a steep price climb on food staples". There's no "fact" in this statement.

I can just as well write a statement along the lines that "Economic efficiencies in food production, coupled with the elimination of import taxes, will dramatically lower prices for the poorest Colombian consumers" and it would be just as valid.

[Judi Lynn]

29. Mexican labor leader says free trade deals kill jobs

Mexican labor leader says free trade deals kill jobs
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
By Ann Belser, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Benedicto Martinez Orozco, co-president of a Mexican trade union, speaks at the United Steelworkers Building.It was 11:34 a.m. yesterday when President Bush announced he would be fast-tracking the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia.

Half an hour later, at a forum on the North American Free Trade Agreement, Benedicto Martinez Orozco, the co-president of a Mexican trade union, told a filled hall at the United Steelworkers Building just how bad an idea the free trade agreements are.

In the first two years after Nafta was signed, Mr. Martinez said, thousands of small and midsize Mexican companies found they could not compete with the multinational companies that suddenly flooded the Mexican markets.

"In the first years thousands of middle-sized businesses closed, and that left thousands more workers without jobs," Mr. Martinez said through an interpreter. "Bigger companies bought up businesses, and we started to see the concentration of industries."

The result, he said, was that there were many people who became very rich, while now 14 years later, about half the population of the country, is either underemployed or unemployed.

In just the last six years he said, wages have deteriorated by 60 percent; so while the minimum wage is 51 pesos, or between $4.50 and $5 a day, a kilogram of meat, which is about 2 pounds, costs 70 pesos.

More:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08099/871327-28.stm

[robcon]

24. This is disgraceful.

I have always supported Nancy Pelosi in her job, but this is awful.

[Judi Lynn]

28. U.S. business worried vote will cripple "fast track"

U.S. business worried vote will cripple "fast track"
Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:48am EDT
By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. farm and business groups expressed concern on Thursday that a showdown between the White House and Congress over a free trade deal with Colombia could cripple future U.S. ability to negotiate trade agreements.

Upset with U.S. President George W. Bush's decision to send the Colombia agreement to Congress this week, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a vote later Thursday to delay action on the deal indefinitely.

That would be accomplished by changing "fast track," or trade promotion authority, rules that require Congress to approve or reject a pact within 90 days of receiving it from the White House, including a 60-day deadline for House action.
(snip)

"The proposed elimination of this 30-year framework is simply not in the United States' interest," Cohen said.

"Indeed, rejection of this framework as it applies to Colombia will undermine U.S. credibility in negotiations for decades to come, making it more difficult for the United States to level the playing field, eliminate foreign trade barriers and open foreign markets to our goods and services," he said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also urged House members to "respect" the terms of the 2002 trade promotion authority act, which renewed fast track, and warned they would include Thursday's vote in their annual lawmaker scorecard.

More:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1034010320080410?rpc=401&

http://www.zefrank.com.nyud.net:8090/web/46.jpg http://www.zefrank.com.nyud.net:8090/web/14.jpg http://www.zefrank.com.nyud.net:8090/web/79.jpg

[Judi Lynn]

30. US House set to 'kill' Colombia deal -White House

US House set to 'kill' Colombia deal -White House
Thu 10 Apr 2008, 13:56 GMT

WASHINGTON, April 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives will effectively kill a free trade deal with Colombia by voting later on Thursday to delay action on it indefinitely, a White House spokeswoman said.

"We believe that if the Democrats decide to hold this vote today they are effectively killing the Colombia free trade agreement and there are lots of consequences that go along with that," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

President George W. Bush sent the Colombia free trade agreement to Congress on Tuesday in an attempt to force a vote on it before the end of the year.

The United States and Colombia signed the deal in November 2006 but it is strongly opposed by U.S. labor groups -- a core Democratic Party constituency -- who say Colombia has not done enough to stop killings of trade unionists and to put their murderers in jail.

More:
http://africa.reuters.com/commodities/news/usnN10334268.html?rpc=401&

[Judi Lynn]

40. Colombia's Plata Says Rejecting Trade Accord Same as Sanctions

Colombia's Plata Says Rejecting Trade Accord Same as Sanctions

By Mark Drajem and Joshua Goodman

April 11 (Bloomberg) -- Colombia's trade minister said rejection of a free-trade accord by the U.S. Congress would be tantamount to imposing ``trade sanctions'' on one of America's staunchest allies.

``Not having a trade agreement is almost like having trade sanctions imposed in the sense that you've been downgraded, or are at least now one level below the other comparable economies in the continent'' that do have trade deals, such as Mexico, Chile, Peru and Central America, Trade Minister Luis Guillermo Plata said in an interview.

In an unprecedented move, lawmakers voted 224-195 yesterday to deny President George W. Bush's request that Congress vote on the pact within 90 days, upending over 30 years of trade consensus between the U.S. executive and legislative branches. Eliminating the deadline allows Democrats to postpone a decision on the agreement until after the November elections.
(snip)

U.S. unions say their counterparts in Colombia are subject to an unacceptable level of violence.

So far this year, 17 union organizers have been killed in Colombia compared with 26 for all of last year. Such killings reached a peak of 196 in 2002, according to the Colombian government. More union organizers are killed in Colombia than any other nation, according to the AFL-CIO.

More:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayVDa9pS9yDE&refer=worldwide

~~~~ click ~~~~

Trade Minister Luis Guillermo Plata!



Cheer up. It's only 90 days, f'r chrissakes. You'd think Democrats had tried to kill
these clowns, just the way their paramilitaries torture and kill union workers there,
after terrorizing them and their families mercilessly.

[robcon]

42. Again, Judi Lynn, you intentionally misinform DU.

Judi Lynn wrote: "Cheer up. It's only 90 days, f'r chrissakes."

The rule is that any trade agreement must be voted on within 90 days. Pelosi is overturning that rule. There will be no vote on this pact. Not in 90 days. Not ever. Pelosi will not allow a vote.

I have supported Nancy Pelosi from the beginning. But this is a betrayal of an ally.

Since the U.S. has free trade agreements with Peru, Chile, Central America, Mexico and Canada, I can understand Columbia's feeling that limiting its trade access to the largest economy in the world is considered to be the equivalent of sanctions, since Columbia's neighbors can access the U.S. economy without tariffs and other trade barriers.

[Judi Lynn]

43. You haven't supported Nancy Pelosi from the beginning. She's a Democrat.

Don't think for a moment people aren't completely aware that you, and others trying to push the "me first" principle down everyone's throat, have no concern whatsoever over the fact that Democrats in Congress, and American unions are drawing a line to send a message to a filthy, murderous regime that KILLING UNION WORKERS, TORTURING UNION WORKERS, TERRORIZING UNION WORKERS' FAMILIES IS DEAD WRONG.

The unavoidable pure filth of exploitation of people by foreign interests doesn't seem to be a problem for you, but it surely is for American workers, and they have conveyed their feelings to their Congressmen, women.

While you and your allies support abuse and terror of the helpless poor, decent people DON'T support this evil. In case the point continually slides away from you and you simply can't grasp it, it's a deal breaker for DEMOCRATS.

[Zorro]

47. Good, honest people support a free trade agreement with Colombia

I think it's in the best interests of both countries for both economic and political reasons, and there are a lot of other Democrats that feel the same way.

Your ongoing campaign to label those that disagree with your mischaracterizations as "evil" and supporting a "filthy, murderous regime" smacks of the same kind of Bush Republican intolerance this country has endured for the past seven years.

[Judi Lynn]

48. 10 Democrats voted with the Republicans on the FTA in the House. 10. I saw an article

saying they are Blue Dog Democrats in areas with Republican dominance.

The Uribe administration which allows union people and campesinos to be tortured and slaughtered without mercy is evil. Only a right-winger would be diseased enough to deny it.

[Zorro]

51. I can make just as obnoxiously judgmental statements

Uribe's enemies are ignorant, unbalanced misfits that enthusiastically support FARC murders, tortures, and kidnappings of innocent Colombians.

Their blind support of FARC predations clearly shows their total and complete amorality. They are Republicans in the degree of their unhinged hatred.

[Judi Lynn]

44. Colombia trade agreement as a precedent - the Ludlow massacre

Colombia trade agreement as a precedent - the Ludlow massacre
David Sirota, Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Ninety-four years ago on April 20, America made international news when a government-sanctioned paramilitary unit murdered Colorado union organizers at a Rockefeller-owned coal mine. The Ludlow Massacre was "a story of horror unparalleled in the history of industrial warfare," wrote the New York Times in 1914 - and the abomination was not just the violence, but the way political and corporate leaders colluded on their homicidal plans to protect profits.

Sanitized history teaches that our government has since changed. Quite the contrary, as the Bush administration attempted this week to legitimize the methods of Ludlow through its Colombia Free Trade Agreement. That attempt failed when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the House to a vote that indefinitely postpones consideration of the pact.

Colombia resembles Colorado in the early 20th century, only with more frequent slaughters. In the last two decades, more than 2,500 Colombian labor organizers have been assassinated, making Colombia the world's most dangerous place for unionists.

This violence is underwritten by companies like Chiquita, which has financed Colombian death squads that "destroyed unions, terrorized workers and killed thousands of civilians," according to Portfolio magazine. The brutality deliberately depresses labor costs in a country where business analysts cite exploitative conditions as reason to invest.

This situation, like Ludlow, developed not in spite of the governing elite, but thanks to it. As the Washington Post reports, Colombia's "most influential political, military and business figures helped build" the killing machine. Recently, prosecutors connected these paramilitaries to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe's allies.

More:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/10/EDK6103CKL.DTL

[Judi Lynn]

45. Sanctioned and Unsanctioned Protests of Human Rights Abuses

April 10, 2008 at 17:31:46

Headlined on 4/10/08:
Sanctioned and Unsanctioned Protests of Human Rights Abuses

by Edgar Pope

It would seem that not all violations of human rights were created equal.

I of course do not wish to condone Chinese behavior in Tibet. Far from it. But until we see that selective criticism —holding some responsible for human rights abuses but not others—is counterproductive, and might even be serving conservative interests, we ought to take pause.

Why, for example, do protestors against China get such ample coverage in the press? Figuring this out is not rocket science, of course, if you take the time to stop and think about it. The same old cold war communist witch hunt is behind it. Not far below the surface of the indignation feigned by the corporate media in the face of human rights abuses in Tibet lies somehow the notion that capitalism is a panacea, the cure for all that ails us.

These are the same sentiments, of course, that are behind the Bush administration’s latest sleight of hand—the transformation of a “free trade agreement” with Colombia (about which there would be little “free” either for Colombians or for American workers since these agreements lead to a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and undermine both labor rights and environmental protections in the countries that sign them) into a “national security issue.” Hugo Chávez’s influence in the region must be stopped, they tell us. If I recall correctly, Chávez is a freely elected head of state who won his election with a greatly larger majority than George Bush did (if Bush even won). It would seem that Chávez would have the right to exert an influence in South America if he can, and it would seem appropriate for other South American countries to make alliances, either economic or military, with him if they choose to do so. (Given the history of CIA intervention in Latin America, it is not surprising that leaders there are reluctant to trust the US and want to ward off further agitation from the north. Can we blame Rafael Correa for suspecting CIA infiltration of Colombia’s armed forces?)

But the imperialist dream dies very hard, and the United States, in the face of dwindling economic influence exacerbated by the excesses of a capitalism that under the Bush administration is even less regulated than usual (hence the so-called lending crisis), feels the urgency to try to undermine in South America a burgeoning sense of independence from the North. (And then Americans don’t understand why people do not like us or why two-thirds of the people in the world no longer think we exert a positive influence.)

More:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_edgar_po_080410_sanctioned_and_unsan.htm

[Judi Lynn]

46. Labor Gears Up Campaign Against Colombia Free Trade Pact

Labor Gears Up Campaign Against Colombia Free Trade Pact
Workday Minnesota

Thursday 10 April 2008

Washington - Organized labor, joined by several congressional Democrats, has geared up its campaign to stop the proposed U.S.-Colombia "free trade" agreement.

But they don't have much time. President Bush submitted the pact April 7 under "fast-track" rules that call for an up-or-down House vote within 60 days and a Senate vote within 90 days. No amendments are allowed.

Nevertheless, AFL-CIO Legislative Director Bill Samuel predicted Bush faces "an uphill battle" to get the Colombia FTA approved.

The pact would dump all tariffs and other trade restrictions between the U.S. and the South American nation. But while the pact itself has weak labor rights language in its text - as opposed to other Bush trade pacts which had none - the implementing legislation has none. That legislation would let the pact take effect, and that's what Congress will vote on without the possibility of changing it.

Union leaders said the big problem with the Colombia FTA is that it opens the U.S. market to a government that has let right-wing paramilitaries - some of them paid by U.S.-based multinational corporations - murder unionists at will for at least a decade. Some 2,584 unionists have been assassinated in Colombia during the last 15 years.

Both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations oppose the agreement.

More:
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/041008LA.shtml

[Judi Lynn]

49. Sammon falsely attributed the term "nuclear option" to Senate Democrats

Fri, Apr 11, 2008 1:55pm ET

Sammon falsely attributed the term "nuclear option" to Senate Democrats

On the April 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, during a panel discussion about a vote in the Democratic-led House to suspend the 60-day requirement for voting on the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, Washington Examiner senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon said of the House Democrats' move: "I call it more like the 'nuclear option,' because that's what the Democrats called the Republican threat to change the rules back when they were trying to get judges through." Sammon was referring to a 2005 Republican-proposed Senate rule change that would have effectively eliminated the ability to filibuster judicial nominations. But as Media Matters for America documented on several occasions, the term "nuclear option," as it pertains to judicial filibusters, was originally coined by Republican Sen. Trent Lott (MS) -- not by Democrats. In fact, during the April 17, 2005, edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos Lott admitted that he is "given credit" for calling the proposed rule change the "nuclear option," but added: "I'm not sure I want it. I prefer to call it the constitutional option."

Indeed, a May 17, 2005, Washington Post article about rhetoric used in the Senate during the judicial nomination process in 2005 which reported that "the term was coined by Republican Sen. Trent Lott," also stated that: "Republicans have tried to rechristen 'nuclear option' as the 'constitutional option,' a less radioactive alternative. 'Nuclear option' gives Democrats too many opportunities to portray the Republican position as bellicose, doomsday-bringing and generally unpleasant."

More:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110002

[Judi Lynn]

50. Colombia suspends warlord's extradition

Colombia suspends warlord's extradition
The Associated Press | Friday, Apr 11 2008 2:20 PM
Last Updated: Friday, Apr 11 2008 2:21 PM

A court has temporarily blocked the extradition of one of Colombia's most feared warlords while it decides whether he should first finish a sentence here, a lawyer said Friday.

Carlos Mario Jimenez, better known by the alias "Macaco," is wanted by the United States on charges of drug trafficking, money laundering and financing terrorist groups. His extradition was approved April 2.

Alirio Uribe, a lawyer who represents victims of the paramilitaries, said a court granted his request to stay the extradition late Thursday.

The Colombian government last year stripped Jimenez of the benefits of a peace process - including protection from extradition - saying he was continuing to run drug trafficking and paramilitary operations from behind bars.

More:
http://www.bakersfield.com/893/story/414167.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The corporate media, which continues to claim Uribe has demobilized the death squads need to spend a few quality moments reading the reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch concerning the bogus demobilization which have been out for a very long time, far longer than you'd think the corporate media, if responsible, if honest, could afford to ignore:




Colombia: Demobilizations Legitimize Paramilitary Power
Interviews Expose Fatal Flaws in Government Approach
(Bogotá, August 1, 2005) — Colombia’s demobilization process is strengthening the power of paramilitary groups without furthering a genuine peace, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.

Drawing on interviews with numerous demobilized paramilitaries, the report is the first to document the Colombian government’s mishandling of the recent paramilitary demobilizations.

“The government’s failure to conduct the demobilizations in a serious manner is helping paramilitary commanders launder their wealth and legitimize their political power,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas Director for Human Rights Watch. “Having interviewed numerous demobilized paramilitaries, government officials, and other insiders, it is evident this process is rotten to the core.”
(snip)

“The demobilization process is a way to try to clean the biggest guys, move all their money into legality,” according to one demobilized paramilitary. Another said bluntly that the process is “a farce. It’s a way of quieting down the system and returning again, starting over from another side.”
(snip)

“Rather than correcting the problems in the demobilization process, the new law compounds them,” said Vivanco. “It eliminates the Colombian government’s ability to pressure these groups through the threat of extradition, thereby strengthening the position of paramilitary commanders and undermining human rights and the rule of law.”

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/08/01/colomb11547.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justice & Peace Law and Decree 128
Since 2003, paramilitary groups, responsible for the vast majority of human rights violations in Colombia for over a decade, have been involved in a government-sponsored "demobilization" process. More than 25,000 paramilitaries have supposedly demobilized under a process which has been criticized by AI and other Colombian and international human rights groups, as well as by the OHCHR and the IACHR. The process is lacking in effective mechanisms for justice and in its inability to ensure that paramilitary members actually cease violent activities.

In fact, paramilitarism has not been dismantled, it has simply been "re-engineered." Many demobilized combatants are being encouraged to join "civilian informer networks," to provide military intelligence to the security forces, and to become "civic guards". Since many areas of Colombia have now been wrested from guerrilla control, and paramilitary control established in many of these areas, they no longer see a need to have large numbers of heavily-armed uniformed paramilitaries.

However, evidence suggests that many paramilitary structures remain virtually intact and that paramilitaries continue to kill. Amnesty International continues to document human rights violations committed by paramilitary groups, sometimes operating under new names, and often in collusion with the security forces.

More:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Colombia/Justice-and-Peace-Law-and-Decree-128/page.do?id=1101862&n1=3&n2=30&n3=885