The US-Colombia Unfair Trade Agreement: Just Say No!

[Joanne98]

With Congress back in session, the Bush Administration is pushing hard to pass another trade agreement based on the failed NAFTA model, this time with Colombia. The Administration is in a race against public opinion, which is quickly turning against the kind of neoliberal trade deals that have worsened poverty and inequality in every country where they have been implemented and led to a massive loss of jobs in the United States. The proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Colombia promises more of the same. The deal will also strengthen Colombia’s government, which is responsible for severe human rights violations.

With more and more people — in Latin America and in the US — becoming aware of the repercussions of unfair trade rules, MADRE has urged its members to take action and to let their Congressional representatives know that a vote for this trade agreement is a vote for:

1. Worsening Rural Poverty and Hunger

The FTA cuts tariffs on food imported from the US but benefits only the few Colombian farmers who export to the US. Moreover, the deal bars the Colombian government from subsidizing farmers, while large-scale US corn and rice growers enjoy billions in subsidies. These double standards guarantee that US agribusiness can undersell Colombian farmers, who will face bankruptcy as a result. Many of Colombia’s small-holder farmers are women and Indigenous Peoples who are losing their livelihoods and being forced off their lands.

2. Fueling Armed Conflict and Drug Trafficking

The intertwined crises of poverty, landlessness and inequality are at the root of Colombia’s 50-year armed conflict. The FTA will further concentrate wealth in the hands of a few while worsening poverty for millions of people. Many Colombian farmers, whose livelihoods will be destroyed by the FTA, will be compelled to cultivate coca (the raw material for producing cocaine) to earn a living.

Continuing a trend begun in the wake of 9-11, the US has cast the FTA as a matter of its “national security,” and the Colombian government has followed suit by treating anyone opposed to the deal as a terrorist. Colombia’s workers, Afro-Colombians and Indigenous Peoples have taken a clear position against the FTA. Their peaceful protests have been met with severe repression, including murder.

3. Repressing Labor Rights

Colombia is already the world’s deadliest country for trade unionists, with more than 2,000 labor activists killed since 1991. The FTA does not require Colombia to meet international core labor standards; it merely calls on the government to abide by its own weak labor laws. Without enforceable labor protections, the trade deal will put more workers at risk. US workers’ power to negotiate better wages will also be weakened by a deal that allows corporations operating in Colombia to keep labor costs down through sheer violence.

4. Exacerbating Climate Change and Threatening Biodiversity

Continued>>>
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/02/8032/

And might I add. Some Democrats in the House are saying they want to vote for it if Bush puts in more job training programs for people who get displaced. They still just don't fucking get it. When ALL your jobs are getting shipped out of the country there isn't anything to get trained for. IDIOTS! The H1B visas are bringing people in to take jobs of the educated. When are they going to get a fucking clue. AND Bush is trying to use Colombia to start a war with Venezuela and he's using this trade agreement to do it. SO not only does the trade agreement screw workers, it's another WAR enabler. The Dems AND the thugs need to know that if you vote for this trade agreement, you will be FIRED in November. GET IT?

[Benhurst]

1. Does anybody have Clinton's and Obama's stands on this?

Thanks in advance.
:hi:

[Benhurst]

2. I guess not.

What an exciting choice!

[Judi Lynn]

3. This may help a little:

April 2, 2008, 10:29 am
Obama Vows Opposition to Colombia Trade Deal
Nick Timiraos reports from Philadelphia, Pa. on the presidential race.

Sen. Barack Obama promised to stand firm in his opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement on Wednesday–days after President Bush asked Congress to quickly pass the trade deal–in a speech to rally the union vote at the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO’s annual convention.

The Illinois senator said he would oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement “because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.”

Unions have lobbied hard against the measure in part because of concerns of the deaths of trade unionists in Colombia. Congress passed a similar free trade deal with Peru in December. Obama and rival Sen. Hillary Clinton supported the deal but were not present to vote on it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/02/obama-vows-opposition-to-colombia-trade-deal/?mod=WSJBlog

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Colombia FTA meets the presidential campaign

~snip~
the whole idea of free trade is quite unpopular, especially with Democratic primary voters. A Democratic candidate who professes support for new free-trade agreements risks a voter backlash. As a result, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not only declared their opposition to the Colombia FTA, they have even been promising to re-negotiate the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.

Now, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is threatening to become a new source of presidential campaign controversy. As the April 22 vote in Pennsylvania nears, we may see both Obama and Clinton competing to show which one opposes the Colombia deal more.

On Wednesday, Obama, citing the dangerous climate for labor organizing, reiterated his opposition to the Colombia agreement. Colombian President Álvaro Uribe put out a statement later that same day angrily rebuking Obama. “I deplore the fact that Senator Obama, aspiring to be president of the United States, should be unaware of Colombia’s efforts,” Uribe said. “I think it is for political calculations that he is making a statement that does not correspond to Colombia’s reality.”

More:
http://www.cipcol.org/?p=575

[Benhurst]

11. Thanks.

:hi:

[Zorro]

4. I seriously doubt it will worsen rural poverty and hunger

because of a influx of food from U.S. agribusinesses.

It's not as if the majority of Colombians do their shopping at Kroger. I really have a hard time believing that agribusiness products will target and penetrate local vegetable markets as a result of this trade agreement.

And if #1 is dubious, then it follows to reason that #2 is also a questionable assertion.

I think lowering import tariffs is a win-win proposition for both the US and Colombia. It makes products imported from both countries less expensive, which helps stretch the family dollar.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Good grief. Try reading what has happened in Mexico not to the consumers but to the FARMERS who

have been driven off their families' generations old properties, who have found themselves devastated, bankrupt when the heavily U.S. government subsidized crops flooded their markets, making their own barely minimally workable profits plummet?

Mexican property owners, farmers, laborers could not live attempting to work at occupations requiring the owner to invest far more money into producing the crops than they could EVER recover again at the new price levels.

Instead of attempting to superimpose your uninformed opinion, get busy and start trying to get a grasp of the subject FIRST.

Inform yourself, THEN offer your opinion. Works far better that way.

[Zorro]

9. Mexican farming is quite a big issue where I live

SoCal farmers are quite concerned with the influx of Mexican avocados, strawberries, and other crops into the local marketplace. So your assertion that Mexican farmers are being driven out of business because they can't compete is dubious at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. Does your understanding of the real-world come from uncritically accepting whatever propaganda fits your agenda?

I'm very interested in what your qualifications are that allows you to dismissively and contemptuously insult my opinion and observations. Do you have first-hand experiences in South America that qualifies your "expertise"?

[Judi Lynn]

6. The U.S.-Colombia FTA: Fuels the Fires of the Conflict

The U.S.-Colombia FTA: Fuels the Fires of the Conflict

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Negotiations for the proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (U.S.-Colombia FTA)1 were completed on February 27, 2006. The text was not released to the public until May 2006, three months later.

The U.S.-Colombia FTA and its links to militarization is yet another manifestation of the “one-size-fits-all” model that does not live up to the interfaith principles and the AFSC working party document entitled “Putting Dignity at the Heart of the Global Economy”. In addition, given the state of war and largely U.S. funded militarization in Colombia, a new principle is provided that states, “International trade and investment systems should be designed to diminish the likelihood and longevity of violent conflicts”.2 Examples that the FTA does not measure up to the principles are highlighted below.

1) International trade and investment systems should be designed to diminish the likelihood and longevity of violent conflict.

We observe: The conflict in Colombia is deeply rooted in economic, social, and political inequalities. Wealth and land remain concentrated in the hands of a few and Colombia’s political system neglects the needs of the majority of the population—especially Afro-Colombians and Indigenous peoples. The government and those in power respond with violent repression to those who attempt to change the unequal situation.

Agriculture is the third most important sector in terms of employment in Colombia, with 22.7 percent (almost double the figures for employment in the industrial sector, which generates 13.5 percent), and provides 11.4 percent of GDP.3 Given that 12 years of NAFTA and the resulting flood of low-cost corn, wheat and beef imports from the U.S. that has been a major contributor to the displacement of 1.7 million small scale Mexican farmers, the potential negative impact on Colombian peasants, indigenous and Afro-Colombians is real. Since opening Colombia’s market to compete with the U.S. will actually lead to more human insecurity, U.S. trade policy in Colombia is inconsistent with the stated goals of the U.S. government’s drug war policy.

Political and economic marginalization has already stoked widespread protests and political insecurity. However, dissent has been met with harsh repression. For example, on May 15, 2006 a national summit was called by Afro-Colombians andIndigenous leaders across fourteen provinces in Colombia to protest against the FTA and militarization. Tens of thousands of people who came out were met with severe repression, resulting in many deaths. As President Alvaro Uribe pushes the FTA through the Colombian Constitutional Court and legislature, voices of dissent will continue to be repressed, fueling the violence already felt in these communities of peaceful resistance.

2) International trade and investment systems should respect and support the dignity of the human person, the integrity of creation, and our common humanity.

We observe: Colombia continues to be the most violent place in the world for trade unionists. According to the National Labor School (ENS) in Colombia, 70 trade unionists were murdered in 2005.

The Colombian government has consistently failed to investigate and charge those responsible for the murders of Colombian trade unionists. According to a new study released by the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center, of the 3,000 murders of trade unionist between 1986 and 2002, only 376 were even investigated by the government, and only five of those cases resulted in guilty verdicts.4

Wages and working conditions in all countries will be hurt if trade pacts continue to encourage corporations to race to the bottom in workers’ rights. The U.S.-Colombia FTA lacks meaningful provisions to strengthen human rights protections. With regard to labor rights, the FTA only requires countries to effectively enforce their own labor laws, with no incentive to bring weak laws and enforcement up to the International Labor Organisation (ILO) core labor standards. Just like CAFTA, the enforcement and penalty mechanisms in the labor chapter of the U.S.-Colombia FTA are so weak that they provide no credible influence over the multinational corporations or Colombian government.

More:
http://www.afsc.org/trade-matters/trade-agreements/Colombia/statement.htm

[Judi Lynn]

7. US-Colombia Free Trade Deal Costly for Poor People

US-Colombia Free Trade Deal Costly for Poor People
27 February 2006

International aid organization Oxfam expressed concern at today’s announcement that the US and Colombia have concluded negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement. Oxfam believes that the agreement, in its current form, will do more harm than good and will endanger the livelihood of many thousands of small farmers who already live in poverty and dangerously threaten Colombia’s access to important life-saving drugs at affordable prices.

“The US-Colombia Free Trade agreement will institutionalize an uneven playing field between the two countries instead of establishing fair and equitable rules for trade that could promote development and reduce poverty,” said Stephanie Weinberg, Policy Advisor for Oxfam America.

According to Oxfam, the US-Colombia Free Trade agreement includes strict new intellectual property rules that could seriously obstruct efforts to lower the price and increase the accessibility of life-saving medicines. These new rules exceed the World Trade Organization (WTO) standards and will restrict or limit the use of WTO safeguards to protect public health and promote access to medicines for all.

“The US-Colombia Free Trade agreement unduly extends the monopoly period enjoyed by international pharmaceutical companies and could dangerously hinder Colombia’s access to important life-saving drugs at affordable prices” continued Weinberg.

The agreement also does not take into account that the US subsidizes farm production with billions of dollars in taxpayer support. This could spell economic disaster for the millions of people in Colombia who depend on agriculture who could face massive dumping of subsidized farm products on their market. Although the trade agreement is supposed to help in the fight against drug trafficking, Oxfam warns that poor farmers who cannot sell their corn and rice will have few other options but to grow coca to survive.

“Trade agreements should offer economic opportunity and development, not dumping of agricultural products and impediments to public health. The rules on intellectual property, agriculture and investment negotiated into this agreement add up to a bad deal for farmers, workers and consumers in Colombia.”

More:
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/press_releases/archive2006/press_release.2006-04-05.0288431709

[Judi Lynn]

8. Peru, Yes; Colombia? Free Trade Agreements: Lessons from Latin America’s Recent Past

Peru, Yes; Colombia? Free Trade Agreements: Lessons from Latin America’s Recent Past
Peru’s Free Trade victory in U.S. Senate could later embarrass both Senators Clinton and Obama for their pro Peru stance, but also could spotlight President Garcia’s complicity in massive human rights violations when the Shining Path Guerrillas were active.
(snip)

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.
(snip)

The Mexican Example
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been focused on boosting trade between Mexico and the U.S since it came into effect in 1994. However, it is undeniable that some sectors of the Mexican labor force, such as the country's farmers, have markedly suffered from this trade deal. Prevost explains that "lower tariffs caused U.S. corn, which is subsidized, to push Mexican prices down further, forcing more than one million small farmers out of business since 1994." The consumers have not noticeably benefited from these transactions, since the price of tortillas (a staple of the Mexican diet) has actually quadrupled in some locales because of the lack of equivalent subsidies from the Mexican government. Thus it is clear that Mexican farmers were not ready to compete with a Washington subsidized, 'factory in the field' U.S.-style agricultural economy. For its part, the Mexican government failed to provide a safety net for its farmers who frequently end up at the bottom of the country's national priorities. Ironically, a substantial proportion of the 1.5 million Mexican farmers who have lost their livelihoods in the past few years are from the same demographic pool which is driven to cross the Rio Grande, only to be condemned by brimming majorities in U.S. economic and political sectors which, in fact, enthusiatically had helped NAFTA get on its feet in the past.

The Chilean Example
Economist Claudio Lara Cortés describes the FTA signed by Chile and the U.S. in 2002 as "a model to avoid." Even though he acknowledges that Chile's exports to the U.S. have boomed since its implementation, and, broadly speaking, has benefited the Chilean economy (in 2006 exports accounted for 42 percent of the country's GDP), he argues that the fundamental flaw of the FTA is that "consumers and workers are excluded from the process, as if they have no rights besides the right to receive promises." More importantly, he shows that the increased exports have not wholly benefited the Chilean populace; as a result, many have been adversely affected by the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of Chile's business elites. It is the latter who are mainly in charge of making decisions at the peaks of the country's economy—decisions which decidedly reflect the economic interests of the financial titans in Chile.

More:
http://www.coha.org/2007/12/06/peru-yes-colombia-free-trade-agreements-lessons-from-latin-america%E2%80%99s-recent-past/

[Judi Lynn]

10. More on US trade bills:

~snip~
Robin Hood in Reverse

Not only does the 2002 farm bill act as a welfare program for agribusiness, with U.S. taxpayers footing the bill, it also robs the world's poor. Wielding the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and international trade agreements, the U.S. is opening up foreign markets for exports by forcing poor countries to remove subsidies and lower tariffs. However, the U.S. shields itself from foreign competition by increasing its subsidies and maintaining tariffs. These measures have allowed the U.S. to dump its farm surplus on world markets. For example, the U.S. exports corn at prices 20 percent below the cost of production, and wheat at 46 percent below cost.(14) This has resulted in Mexican corn farmers being put out of business. More than 80 percent of Mexico's extreme poor live in rural areas, and more than 2 million are corn farmers. There is no way they can compete with subsidized American agribusiness.

A dramatic increase in U.S. agricultural subsidies will further jeopardize the livelihoods of Third World farmers. The new bill will stimulate an even greater domestic farm surplus, which the U.S. will then dump at prices even farther below the cost on world markets, depressing the global commodity prices of crops that developing countries count on while wiping out even more poor farmers. The result is a reverse Robin Hood effect-robbing the world's poor to enrich American agribusiness.
(snip)

Even the World Bank President, James Wolfensohn, acknowledges that "these subsidies are crippling Africa's chance to export its way out of poverty."(17) Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Program, estimates that U.S. farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports. By coincidence, that's about the same as the total of rich countries' aid to poor countries.
(snip)

These double standards in the administration that professes allegiance to market economics and fiscal probity have unleashed a wave of indignation among countries whose development prospects largely depend on farm exports. These countries are appealing to the WTO for sanctions, threatening retaliation, and charging the U.S. with hypocrisy in taking a protectionist turn even as it urges other nations to open up further. The U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, has acknowledged that "we deserve the criticism we have received."(19)

More:
http://www.foodfirst.org/node/52

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why Mexico's Small Corn Farmers Go Hungry

By TINA ROSENBERG

MEXICO CITY

~snip~
The problems of rural Mexicans are echoed around the world as countries lower their import barriers, required by free trade treaties and the rules of the World Trade Organization. When markets are open, agricultural products flood in from wealthy nations, which subsidize agriculture and allow agribusiness to export crops cheaply. European farmers get 35 percent of their income in government subsidies, American farmers 20 percent. American subsidies are at record levels, and last year, Washington passed a farm bill that included a $40 billion increase in subsidies to large grain and cotton farmers.

It seems paradoxical to argue that cheap food hurts poor people. But three-quarters of the world's poor are rural. When subsidized imports undercut their products, they starve. Agricultural subsidies, which rob developing countries of the ability to export crops, have become the most important dispute at the W.T.O.

Wealthy countries do far more harm to poor nations with these subsidies than they do good with foreign aid.

While such subsidies have been deadly for the 18 million Mexicans who live on small farms "nearly a fifth of the country". Mexico's near-complete neglect of the countryside is at fault, too. Mexican officials say openly that they long ago concluded that small agriculture was inefficient, and that the solution for farmers was to find other work. "

The government's solution for the problems of the countryside is to get campesinos to stop being campesinos," says Victor Suarez, a leader of a coalition of small farmers.

But the government's determination not to invest in losers is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The small farmers I met in their fields in Puebla want to stop growing corn and move into fruit or organic vegetables. Two years ago Mr. Hernandez, who works with a farming cooperative, brought in thousands of peach plants. But only a few farmers could buy them. Farm credit essentially does not exist in Mexico, as the government closed the rural bank, and other bankers do not want to lend to small farmers. "We are trying to get people to rethink and understand that the traditional doesn't work," says Mr. Hernandez. "But the lack of capital is deadly."

The government does subsidize producers, at absurdly small levels compared with subsidies in the United States. Corn growers get about $30 an acre. Small programs exist to provide technical help and fertilizer to small producers, but most farmers I met hadn't even heard of them.

Mexico should be helping its corn farmers increase their productivity or move into new crops" especially since few new jobs have been created that could absorb these farmers. Mexicans fleeing the countryside are flocking to Houston and swelling Mexico's cities, already congested with the poor and unemployed. If Washington wants to reduce Mexico's immigration to the United States, ending subsidies for agribusiness would be far more effective than beefing up the border patrol.

###

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E3DD1F3CF930A35750C0A9659C8B63

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mexican Corn Farmers Face Crisis, Anthropologist Says
April 27, 2006

Little evidence exists that Mexico is losing its rich tradition of growing corn varieties to the threat of globalization and transgenic hybrids, but a UC Davis agricultural anthropologist is seeing a crisis for the small farmer.

"Overall, the market for Mexican-grown maize or corn for tortillas continues to be robust," says Stephen Brush, a UC Davis professor of community development. "But low prices and competition with U.S. imports have made it impossible for Mexican farmers to support themselves."

As a result, farmers are leaving their wives in rural areas to tend what has been traditionally the male task of fieldwork while they seek employment elsewhere. The men, who have joined Mexico's migrant stream to areas where economies are stronger, sometimes time their trips home during the planting and harvest seasons.

More:
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7724

[Judi Lynn]

12. Free-trade plan with Colombia likely to cause stir

April 6, 2008, 11:29PM
Free-trade plan with Colombia likely to cause stir
House divided on deal expected to be posed this week


By BENNETT ROTH
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration appears likely to force a vote in Congress this year over the Colombia free-trade agreement, a risky move in a presidential election year with the economy slowing down and voters souring on global trade.

People inside and outside the administration expect the deal to be submitted to Congress as early as this week, setting in motion a "fast track" timetable that will require votes by September — just weeks before Election Day. A political fight is assured. The only question is, how bruising will it become?

President Bush has defended what he views as the agreement's economic and national security benefits to the United States. Its approval, he has told audiences outside the capital, would support President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, Washington's staunchest ally in South America and a counterweight to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
(snip)

Many Democrats oppose the accord on the grounds it would reward a government that has condoned anti-union violence and human-rights abuses. The House Republican leadership is attempting to frame the political struggle as a vote for either Uribe or Chavez.
(snip)

But the timing of the vote could not be more precarious for the administration, with the economy becoming a top concern of many voters, and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competing to show their opposition to free trade.

"In most parts of the country, free trade is a dirty word," said Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan political analyst.

Critics blame, in particular, the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada for blue-collar job losses, particularly in the Rust Belt states of the Midwest.

More:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5679366.html