U.S.-Colombian relations
A Washington Post editorial keeps up the long-standing argument that Latin American governments are either friends or enemies. The overall argument is to pass an FTA with Colombia as a way to show Juan Manuel Santos that we like him and to counter Hugo Chávez, even using the word "friends," "ememy," "scorn," and "disdain" to paint a black and white picture of U.S.-Colombian relations. It also suggests that we could show our friendship by increasing military aid.
There are many valid arguments about ratifying the free trade agreement, though editorials tend not to explore them. An FTA with Colombia will have little or no effect on Venezuela or other countries in the region, and so should be evaluated by other criteria.
4 comments:
Unfortunately the reactionary Jackson Diehl seems to own the Post's Latin America desk.
There are many valid arguments about ratifying the free trade agreement
And what exactly are these "many valid arguments"? You often use this line but then never explain what the "many valid arguments" are.
By valid arguments, I mean those focusing (whether pro or con) on the impact on economic growth, the impact on violence inside the country, the impact on inequality and poverty, etc. rather than Venezuela, regional effect, or other issues that are largely irrelevant.
By valid arguments, I mean those focusing (whether pro or con) on the impact on economic growth, the impact on violence inside the country, the impact on inequality and poverty, etc. rather than Venezuela, regional effect, or other issues that are largely irrelevant.
Okay. So, in other words, the arguments (whether for or against the trade agreement) should be based on criteria other than the criteria that the Post employs. That makes sense.
I suspect the reason the Post tries to use dubious criteria is that there really isn't much evidence to support the case that bilateral trade agreements of this nature lessen poverty and/or inequality in Latin American countries.
Post a Comment