Columbia Free Trade Agreement

GAO: "Free Trade" Not Improving Environment, Labor

Marcy Wheeler — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:28:54 -0700

Max Baucus asked GAO to look at four Free Trade Agreements--Jordan, Singapore, Chile, and Morocco--to measure the economic, environmental, and labor benefits of the FTA. And while the report touts Jordan's 400-person environmental law enforcement force, the reality is that our trade partners are making little progress in environmental and labor issues.

FTA negotiations spurred some labor reforms in each of the selected partners, according to U.S. and partner officials, but progress has been uneven and U.S. engagement minimal. An example cited was Morocco’s enactment of a longstalled overhaul of its labor code. However, partners reported that enforcement of labor laws continues to be a challenge, and some significant labor abuses have emerged. In the FTAs we examined, Labor provided minimal oversight and did not use information it had on partner weaknesses to establish remedial plans or work with partners on improvement.

The selected partners have improved their environmental laws and made other progress, such as establishment of an environmental ministry and a 400- strong environmental law enforcement force in Jordan, according to U.S. and foreign officials. However, partner officials report that enforcement remains a challenge, and U.S. assistance has been limited. Elements needed for assuring partner progress remain absent. Notably, USTR’s lack of compliance plans and sporadic monitoring, State’s lax management of environmental projects, and U.S. agencies’ inaction to translate environmental commitments into reliable funding all limited efforts to promote progress.

The shortcoming in achieving labor or environmental goals, GAO reports, is largely due to the failure of US agencies, particularly the US Trade Representative. In addition, there simply isn't the institutional structure to support efforts to improve labor and environmental conditions.

A reliable, well-functioning monitoring and enforcement effort helps sustain congressional and public confidence in the President’s trade strategy and fosters support for continued trade liberalization. The key steps we have identified in monitoring and enforcing trade agreements include identifying problems, setting priorities, gathering and analyzing information, developing responses, and taking enforcement action. However, according to officials at ILAB, State, and USTR, U.S. agencies are not required to proactively monitor and report on FTA partners’ labor commitments after the agreements enter into force. FTAs rely on passive monitoring structures, through which outside parties can raise concerns that the U.S. government can or must react to.

[snip]

U.S. agencies responsible for the implementation of the environmental provisions and cooperation mechanisms lacked key steps in monitoring and enforcing trade agreements (1) identifying problems, (2) setting priorities, (3) gathering and analyzing information, (4) developing responses, and (5) taking enforcement action. USTR is the agency responsible for overseeing the overall implementation of FTAs, and State’s OES is responsible for negotiating the environmental side agreements under the FTAs and implementing cooperative environmental projects. We found that USTR does not proactively monitor the implementation of environmental provisions and that OES lacks a structure to manage and monitor implementation of environmental projects.

This study appears to be preparation to Congressional consideration of the Colombia, Panama, and Korea free trade deals. And what it shows is that--regardless of the claimed economic benefits--the US doesn't have the institutional structure to support the claimed goals of those insisting Free Trade can be "fair."

"Free" Trade & Blowback

David Sirota — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:03:18 -0700

The concept of "blowback" is not something new. As I noted in my most recent syndicated column, blowback is a term long used by our intelligence agencies to describe retaliation against our government for supporting foreign government brutality. Jeremiah Wright - albeit inartfully - described the influence of blowback as it related to the 9/11 attacks and our longstanding support for a variety of Middle Eastern dictatorships. Now, we can see the potential for blowback as it relates to our economic policies - and right here in our own hemisphere.

As you may have heard, the Bush administration is pushing Congress to pass a "free" trade deal with Colombia - a country whose government has been supporting - whether directly or indirectly - all sorts of horrific brutality against its own people. Here's the latest from the Washington Post:

Funded in part by the Bush administration, a six-year military offensive has helped the [Colombian] government here wrest back territory once controlled by guerrillas...But under intense pressure from Colombian military commanders to register combat kills, the army has in recent years also increasingly been killing poor farmers and passing them off as rebels slain in combat, government officials and human rights groups say.

Clearly, the Colombian government's efforts to crack down on guerillas who work with drug cartels is a good thing - but this kind of brutality is unacceptable. Couple it with the Colombian government's known association with paramilitary gangs and with the ongoing violence against union organizers, and the prospect of rewarding this country with a much coveted "free" trade deal is downright troubling - especially when you consider the prospect of blowback.

That's what the anti-Americanism epitomized by the rhetoric of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez really is - a Latin American version of blowback. I'm not saying it is deserved or should be applauded at all - but it certainly should be something we consider when we make foreign policy and international economic policy. When we reward oppressive governments with economic goodies, we tell the indigenous population in the region that America exists not to spread freedom, but to spread oppression. Continuing to pass "free" trade deals that enflame anti-American passions (and, of course, destroy our own economy here at ome) is just downright stupid - no matter how happy it makes corporate lobbyists on K Street.

And yet, the push for these "free" trade deals continues. As Reuters reports:

The Bush administration hopes pending trade deals with Colombia and Panama will help it realize its longtime dream of a free trade zone stretching from northern Alaska to the southern tip of Chile.

Mind you, polls show this "free trade zone" is unpopular in almost every country it encompasses. The only demographic it is truly popular among are wealthy elites. And no matter how much the Bush administration says it wants to stop anti-Americanism in our hemisphere and fix our economy at home, passing corporate-written trade deals is the way to do the exact opposite.

BREAKING: K Street Pushing Colombia FTA Vote This Week

David Sirota — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:47:37 -0700

The Hill has this breaking report today:

Trade lobbyists expect the Bush administration to kick off a fierce election-year battle over trade by introducing legislation implementing the controversial Colombia free trade agreement (FTA) to Congress by the end of this week. By doing so, the administration could force Congress into voting on the agreement. Because the deal was signed before the president’s fast-track authority expired last summer, it remains subject to special rules that speed up consideration.

Colombia has a horrific human rights record. More union organizers are executed there than in the rest of the world combined. Its president has been tied to the leaders of paramilitary gangs who execute these organizers. Meanwhile, polls show Americans are opposed to more NAFTA-style trade deals, like the Bush administration's Colombia proposal. And yet, President Bush - the most unpopular president in contemporary history - is apparently looking to make his last big "accomplishment" another NAFTA-style deal as a final favor to K Street.

In response to the news, Congressman Mike Michaud (D-ME), co-chair of the House Trade Working Group and Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL), a member of the group, released the following statement:

“If the Bush Administration decides to unilaterally submit the Colombia FTA to Congress—this week or any other—we will work hard to convince members on both sides of the aisle to join us in opposition. Simply put, the Colombia FTA would be bad for America, Colombia, and workers around the world. It is based on the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model which led to the outsourcing of millions of high-paying American jobs. To make matters worse, Colombia continues to hold the dubious distinction of being the most dangerous place in the world to be a union organizer. Thirty-nine trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007...While we ultimately believe the Colombia FTA would fail on an up or down vote, we encourage the Democratic leadership to make it clear to the President that should he submit this legislation unilaterally, they will use all the tools at their disposal to ensure this unfair agreement is not enacted. With the U.S. economy on the brink of recession—63,000 jobs lost in February, an annual trade deficit over $700 billion, and foreclosures reaching all-time highs, the American people cannot afford another failed Bush trade agreement.”

Stay tuned...