The U.S.-Columbian Trade Agreement

When you think of Columbia, what comes to mind?

I’m sure for most of you, the words “cocaine”, “kidnapping”, “violence”, “corruption” and “Pablo Escobar” are close to the top. Looking at Columbia’s turbulent past, these words are rather appropriate.

Looking at Columbia’s present situation, however, the terms “ally”, “partner” and “democracy” are also appropriate.

Under the leadership of President Alvaro Uribe, Columbia is transforming from an incredibly violent, corrupt and dangerous hangout for gangsters and drug dealers to an economically vibrant and increasingly safe model of Latin American democracy. Democratic institutions and the rule of law are growing stronger and more inclusive. Unemployment and poverty are shrinking and at their lowest levels in over a decade and an expanding economy is creating good jobs for Colombians.

Additionally, Columbia is our staunchest ally in Latin America, sharing both political and economic interests. The Uribe government has strengthened Columbia’s trade relationship with the U.S., while rejecting the brutal socialism and anti-American policies of Chavez’s Venezuela, their neighbor to the east.

Because of these factors, it is imperative that Congress acts quickly to pass the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. President Bush signed this agreement two years ago, yet it languishes in legislative no-man’s land thanks to Congressional opposition. If Congress does not approve the trade pact this year, prospects of its passing would dim considerably since it would lose the cover of the rule that provides for an up-or-down, no-amendment vote.

The proposed U.S-Columbian Trade Agreement merely maintains the established Columbian trade preferences in this country. But, more importantly, it also begins to eliminate the high tariffs our goods face when entering Columbia (in some cases as high as 35%).

So in essence, this is a win-win for both countries. The U.S. will have access to more, competitively priced Columbian goods, while Columbian citizens and businesses will now be able to purchase American goods without paying exorbitant prices from the tariffs currently in place.

In a time of economic downturn, isn’t it wise to increase trade avenues?

In a time of political uncertainty around the world, doesn’t it make sense to assist a firm and unwavering ally?

Apparently, Congress doesn’t believe so. They are against this trade agreement for some rather questionable reasons; chief among them is the opposition of this agreement by American labor unions. Even though, this agreement would do nothing but help these unions by making their employers more competitive in the global marketplace.

Organized labor claims that they cannot support this agreement due to the human rights violations committed against Columbian union members and leadership.

I think this is an incredibly weak argument as Uribe as taken remarkable steps towards alleviating such violence. Since his election, murders of union members have gone from 256 in 2002, to just 26 in 2007. That’s a decrease of 90%. This 90% reduction in six years is unbelievable, yet apparently insufficient for Congressional Democrats who still claim Uribe “isn’t doing enough”.

This stance ignores the fact that the murder rate of unionists was less than one-eighth the murder rate of all Colombians. It also assumes that each union member was killed specifically for being a union member and nothing else, an incredibly giant leap of faith to make.

Additionally it ignores the government-funded program established by Uribe to specifically protect union workers. This program, while protecting 2,000 workers has a budget of $40 million. That’s $20,000 per worker. If someone thinks that insufficient, I would like to know what their employer spends on worker protection.

Blocking the free trade agreement, which seeks to advance development, does not seem like the best mechanism for defending Colombian trade unionists either.

Democrats also rolled out the same old, tired “environmental” concerns in their opposition to the agreement, but the Bush and Uribe administrations reworked the deal to give the Democrats the environmental restrictions they wanted.

We have a strong relationship with Columbia that started in 1991 when President George H.W. Bush established trade preferences for Columbia to help fight the war on drugs. Back then, Pablo Escobar’s influence made Columbia the drug, murder and kidnapping capital of the world and this move was designed to limit the power of the drug cartels, while strengthening the Columbian economy.

The U.S.-Columbian relationship grew stronger under President Clinton with his Plan Columbia program that further prosecuted the war on drugs. President George W. Bush has continued that program.

So we’ve had a close relationship with Columbia for nearly 20 years, over three administrations and now this Congress says, “enough is enough”? This really makes no sense.

Even liberal rags like the New York Times and the L.A. Times are in favor of this.

It is clear to me that Congressional Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi and President-elect Obama are opposing this bill for frivolous political reasons. They’re doing it to reject anything that President Bush does.

I view this as incredibly embarrassing behavior by Congress because it is not only hurting us, but it’s hurting an ally that has made sensational strides at turning around a hellishly bad situation into a promising one in very little time.

Uribe is a strong, innovative and effective leader, one that deserves our respect and, more importantly, our support. We can start by passing the U.S.-Columbian Trade Agreement.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John