An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« The Blogger Independence Fallacy

Quinnipiac Poll: Clinton Has Stopped Obama Momentum In Pennsylvania »

Colombians Lose as Pelosi, Democrats Play Politics With Trade …

Posted by WILLIAM KERN in Economy, Politics.
Apr 15th, 2008 | Comments

[El Espectador, Colombia]

Have Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats done Colombia wrong on trade? That seems to be the general consensus in that country, Washington’s strongest ally in Latin America. For Colombia’s leading newspaper El Tiempo, Alfredo Rangel writes in part:

“Mrs. Pelosi has gotten her way. With her repeated rejection of the Free Trade Agreement, congressional Democrats are favoring the economic interests of a few U.S. unions and are sacrificing the general interests of Colombia under the pretext of protecting a union minority – the alleged victims of a State that has abandoned them. But behind her apparently humanitarian arguments, it’s clear to everyone that petty electoral interests are being concealed here. The debate over the Free Trade Agreement has been postponed based purely on domestic electoral calculations, in order to pressure the government to grant subsidies to certain U.S. industries. The condition of unionists in Colombia is just a pretext.”

By Alfredo Rangel

Translated By Douglas Myles Rasmussen

April 13, 2008

Colombia – El Tiempo – Original Article (Spanish)

Mrs. Pelosi has gotten her way. With her repeated rejection of the Free Trade Agreement, congressional Democrats are favoring the economic interests of a few U.S. unions and are sacrificing the general interests of Colombia under the pretext of protecting a union minority – the alleged victims of a State that has abandoned them. But behind her apparently humanitarian arguments, it’s clear to everyone that petty electoral interests are being concealed here. The debate over the Free Trade Agreement has been postponed based purely on domestic electoral calculations, in order to pressure the government to grant subsidies to certain U.S. industries. The condition of unionists in Colombia is just a pretext.

In fact as everyone recognizes, in Colombia there has been an overall improvement in the security situation, and hence the protection of human rights. And this improvement has been particularly marked in the case of trade unions. The current government has made more of an effort than previous governments, and this has been reflected in the very positive results that have been achieved. Colombia today is far from being a union firing squad, as unfortunately it was in previous years due to irregular groups.

That remarkable improvement has been a result of the combined impact of dismantling the vast majority of paramilitary groups, the decline in guerrilla violence to less than half what it was five years ago, the almost complete disappearance of the dirty war between those irregular groups, greater efficiency in the justice system and the expansion of programs to protect trade unionists.

Consider the facts. According to the AFL-CIO, the leading U.S. trade union, in 2001 there were 213 union members murdered in Colombia. According to the Ministry of Social Protection, in the year 2006 that figure dropped to 60 murders and in 2007 was cut to 26. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, the majority of those deaths were not politically motivated, nor were there connections between trade unions and the victims. Rather, they were cases of robbery, crimes of passion or other non-political causes.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Don Quijote

in 2001 there were 213 union members murdered in Colombia. According to the Ministry of Social Protection, in the year 2006 that figure dropped to 60 murders and in 2007 was cut to 26.

Might that 26 have something to do with the fact that the position does not seem to lead to long healthy life.

runasim

If Pelosi has political considerations, might the Pres. not also have?

His imperial 'just sign-where-I tell- you-to-sign is definitely a political stance. He invited this fight as much as Pelosi did, if not more. Has the word 'consultation' been ripped from the WH's dictionary?

Interesting development, courtesy of a PBS documentary:
China manufactures two separate sets of toys, one for Europe (without a carcinogenic chemical) and another for USA (with the chemical). Banning the substance had no deliterious economic impact on the toy industry, not in China and not in Europe, despite the fact that the safe substitute substance is more costly.
Trade is vital ,but trade at any cost is often not even necessary.

It's fashionable now in the US to refer to unions with a sneer, and unions, themselves helped earn that sneer by going too far in their glory days. Now, a government swearing first allegience to business is, in turn, going too far. Workers have no more value than pieces of furniture, and often less. The US business sector says that's because they have to oompete, so standing up for workers in our trading partners' countries is one way to level the competition field.

In some parts of the world, like Europe, people are still seen as more than easily replaceable tools for making a profit. They are what makes up a nation. In the US, we have lost sight of that fact, and we are exporting our callous attitude by closing our eyes to how our trading partners treat their laborers..
We get worked up when chemicals kill our pets, but we don't care if those same chemicals kill workers in the exporter country.

What does that say about us?

StockBoySF

(From the article) "Democrats are favoring the economic interests of a few U.S. unions and are sacrificing the general interests of Colombia under the pretext of protecting a union minority - the alleged victims of a State that has abandoned them."

Since when should the United States place the "general interests" of another country ahead of its own interests?

Now, I'm not saying that we should be isolationists and I do believe in free trade, etc. I also believe that the US should help other countries when possible (and for humanitarian reasons we should even help countries we disagree with). But I take issue with this statement by the Columbian that the US (and Pelosi) is sacrificing the general interests of Columbia. The statement says that the US needs to place Columbia's interests first. Also, with the US heading into a recession, so many problems going on around the world and with the Bush administration out the door, I think America needs to pull back and recover. We need to tend to our own garden, pull the weeds and do some landscaping before we can turn attention to the rest of the world. Now I know we can't pull back completely, that's impossible, but the US should take this election season (and change of administrations) to focus and regroup a little. At least we shouldn't embark on any major policy changes.

StockBoySF

runasim, interesting comments. Thanks. I believe that Americans want to be compassionate, but when they feel insecure they lash out in unexpected ways. And our current fearless leader turns Americans against one another to advance his own political agenda and enrich his supporters.

With regards to your comments on "business first, people second".... I agree. I keep wondering about the huge income gap between upper management in companies and folks who keep the companies running. On the one hand I think executives should be rewarded for successfully steering their company, but on the other hand when the wages of the "ordinary people" don't even keep pace with inflation, and the management is raking in more and more money then something is wrong and management's salaries are too much. It sort of becomes like slave labor.... And let's not forget the stockholders who want to see a healthy return on their investment. That return is provided on the backs of ordinary workers.

As far as standing up for workers in the countries we import goods from.... we do a lot of that already. But I disagree that Americans are exporting their callous attitude. The "newly rich" factory owner in China cares more about profit than he cars about the welfare of his fellow countrymen. It is the responsibility of China (and all countries that have unsafe working conditions) to protect its citizens.

The callous attitude that you say America is exporting to other countries is already prevalent in those countries and that callousness is driven by greed and pride. But I also agree with your point that we in America can do more to advance better working conditions for workers in foreign countries. No other country told developing America to clean up its act and treat its workers better. That change was a hard-fought battle that lasted ages (and is still going on). So while America can influence other countries, it is up to those countries to clean up their act. Or lose business with us.

blog comments powered by Disqus