Key points in the Colombia FTA debate
The Bush administration has officially taken what’s been dubbed the “nuclear strategy” by sending the Colombia FTA to Congress for fast track consideration even though Congress is clearly skeptical. It must get an up or down vote within 90 days. Boz has a good summary and links.
For my readers who might be following the debate, here are the key points you need to know when discussing this at your next cocktail party.
- Passage of the FTA is the linchpin to the stability of all
- The FTA will “lead to a better life”
- If you oppose the FTA, you are “protectionist” and probably a closet socialist
- If you oppose the FTA, you are in league with Hugo Chávez (or at least an unwitting dupe)
- If you oppose the FTA, then you like drug trafficking
8 comments:
Your sarcasm is noted, but the Bush Administration is 100% correct on this one. It defies logic as to how the Dems are against this one.
I think this may be a Republican move to garner the Latino vote in Florida for the November elections. When Obama votes no on this deal, they will attempt to paint him as "anti-Latino". Kind of clever actually.
Regarding strategy, I suppose that is possible. However, I think it is much more likely that the message will be "soft on national security" rather than "anti-Latino." But they could potentially use both.
Good post.
When I was in Colombia I met with some of the Coke workers who've had to face paramilitary intimidation. Not that labor rights are perfect in the U.S., but it doesn't strike me as fair for U.S. workers to have to compete against a place where workers get shot for organizing.
I hope Congress votes it down for the simple reason the "no amendment" clause is not a reasonable request. Placing such a stipulation pretty much says there is something seriously wrong with the trade act as is.
There's no emergency, so why rush. The last time Congress rushed we ended up with the Patriot Act.
Things to consider.
"..it doesn't strike me as fair for U.S. workers to have to compete against a place where workers get shot for organizing."
Thankfully, my job isn't unionized, and I don't know anyone in a union.
Do we count as "workers?" According to the US Dept of Labor, only 7.5 percent of private sector employees are in a union, and many of them are in industries that don't "compete" with foreign countries, like construction.
Well, I agree with Paul in that unions are generally to blame for the US reduction in labor productivity. The unions killed Detroit as well as many other industries. What the unions fail to realize is that if someone is willing to do your job halfway around the world for 10% of your salary, eventually your job will disappear, no matter what the government policy happens to be. We need to focus more on education and providing service jobs for these people versus the false sense that manufacturing is coming back to Ohio and Michigan.
However, the Colombian agreement will have a negligible effect on US jobs, considering Colombia is responsible for 1% of US imports.
It is hardly an accurate statement to claim that unions killed Detroit. It is one factor among many that are contributes to US automaker troubles.
And regardless of whether or not you think unions are positive or negative...to suggest that gross human rights violations are alright to overlook during trade deals is flat out wrong.
Union deaths might be decreasing, but by no means are they at acceptable levels. Whats even more troubling is that the government condones these murders.
Of over 400 murders from 2002 to december of 2007 there have only been 20 convictions, according to the very reputable ENS.
From 2004-2006 union deaths in Colombia account for 2/3rds of reported worldwide union deaths.
And in 2006 the DAS was caught distributing a hit list of trade unions...of which all have been killed or fled the country.
http://www.ens.org.co/
http://www.usleap.org/node/517
"Union deaths might be decreasing, but by no means are they at acceptable levels. "
So a 2/3 drop means nothing. Unionists are killed at a lower rate than the overall homicide rate.
"..to suggest that gross human rights violations are alright to overlook during trade deals is flat out wrong."
The Colombian people, according to the polls, overwhelmingly support Uribe's human rights policies. Your implication the Colombian govt. is responsible for the deaths of every unionist is ludicrous. According to Edward Schumacher-Matos, "Of the 87 convictions won in union cases since 2001, almost all for murder, the ruling judges found that union activity was the motive in only 17. Even if you add the 16 cases in which motive was not established, the number doesn’t reach half of the cases. The judges found that 15 of the murders were related to common crime, 10 to crimes of passion and 13 to membership in a guerrilla organization."
I just don't understand this notion that poor Colombians should be kept poor because they are also victims of violence.
Post a Comment