North American Free Trade Agreement

Colombia FTA: Rewarding Promises Instead of Performance

Leo Gerard — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:22:56 -0400

Tragically, the government of Colombia exhibits the behavior of an addict. And, just as regrettably, the United States is co-dependent, so addicted to so called free trade that it plans to award Colombia an agreement based solely on promises.

Addicts always promise. They’ll stop, they pledge. Their co-dependents desperately want to believe, so they cooperate with the addicts’ demands.

Colombia, the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists, has pledged to try to stop the murders to persuade Congress to approve a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Promises, promises.

And the United States has agreed to accept those promises rather than demand performance before signing an FTA. American’s Wall Street banks and multi-national corporations crave another FTA so badly they will believe anything.

When the Colombia FTA was first proposed, Congress refused to approve it because so many trade unionists are assassinated each year by the Colombian military and paramilitary forces that the murders exceed the number of unionists killed in all other countries of the world combined. In 2007, the year that former President George W. Bush completed the agreement, 39 Colombian unionists were slain.

The Colombian government knew why Congress denied approval. It could have responded four years ago by protecting trade unionists and preserving their lives. It did not.

Instead, the murders increased. In 2008, 52 Colombian trade unionists were assassinated, one a week. In 2009, the number declined by 5 to 47, but it was back up to 52 last year. Six have been slain so far this year, including Hector Orozco and Gilardo Garcia, members of the agricultural union known as Association of Peasant Workers of Tolima, who were threatened by the Colombian military just before they were assassinated. Promises, promises.

In response to the concerns expressed by Congress about the murders, the newly-proposed FTA requires Bogota to improve safeguards for workers by April 22, and to develop a plan by May 20 to enhance the capacity of regional judicial offices because the murders of trade unionists go unpunished by the Colombian government – giving the killers an impunity rate of approximately 95 percent. And by mid-June, the Colombian government promises to increase penalties for threatening workers.

The government of Colombia could have completed all of those steps four years ago. It didn’t bother.

To this point, Congress has taken the moral high ground by refusing to approve the trade deal. It said, basically, as long as Colombia continued to countenance the slaughter of its community and labor leaders, Afro-Colombians and indigenous people, America would not give it special treatment for trade purposes.

In addition, Congress recognized the FTA’s potential to devastate Colombian farmers. The FTA would speed forced displacement of Afro-Colombians and indigenous people by encouraging increased exploitation of their land by business interests, such as palm oil companies, half of which are owned by paramilitary groups. Expelling these farmers from their land would further swell Colombia’s internally-displaced population – the largest in the world at 4.3 million.

Making matters worse for Colombian farmers, the main U.S. beneficiaries of the FTA would be big agricultural companies which would be permitted to dump cheap, subsidized food stuffs into Colombia duty-free. This would result in farmers’ impoverishment and land loss because small growers would not be able to compete with the low-cost American produce. In Haiti and Mexico, domestic food production was wiped out by similar free trade agreements. It’s likely that Colombia would follow the path of Mexico, where, as the ability to grow legitimate crops became economically impossible, farmers turned more and more to producing illicit drugs. Colombia already produces as much as 80 percent of the world’s cocaine.

Business groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, protested the refusal by Congress to approve the FTA, contending that increasing American exports and jobs was more important than protecting Colombian lives and human rights.

The Chamber’s position is not only depraved, it’s based on flawed calculations of exports and jobs. Just like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and granting China entrance to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Colombia FTA will cost America jobs and exacerbate the U.S. trade deficit.

Previous projections by the Chamber and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that NAFTA and China’s WTO membership would improve the U.S. economy proved catastrophically off base.

When the U.S. signed NAFTA in 1993, it had a $1.7 billion trade surplus with Mexico. After the agreement, that surplus quickly morphed into a deficit, which ballooned to $64.7 billion in 2008. These annual deficits cost the U.S. 560,000 jobs between 1993 and 2004.

Similarly, the ITC predicted that the tariff reductions China offered when it entered the WTO would result in a trade deficit of $1 billion a year. Instead, between the years of 2001 and 2008, the actual result was deficits of $185 billion, and the loss or displacement of 2.3 million American jobs.

The U.S. already runs a trade deficit with Colombia. It was $1.86 billion in 2009. The Economic Policy Institute calculates that the proposed FTA with Colombia would nearly double that trade deficit by 2015, which would cost the United States another 55,000 jobs.

Frankly, the EPI calculation, which factors in effects on trade like currency manipulation, is far more credible than the ITC and Chamber reports, which ignore these issues.

Bogota wants the FTA because it believes the deal will be good for Colombian business interests. One immediate bonus, for example, is that the FTA would eliminate tariffs on 80 percent of Colombia’s exports to the U.S.

To get what it wants, the Colombian government is willing to say anything. Just like an addict. Promises, promises. The Colombian government’s past performance shows its pledges to protect workers from assassination are empty.

America must reject the role of co-dependent. It must demand the proof of performance before rewarding the government of Colombia with an FTA.

Without proof of performance, the government of Colombia will get away with murder. It will export more of its goods – crude oil, coffee, fruit and flowers -- to the U.S. And unwitting Americans will buy more blood red Colombian roses.

McCain's Flea-Market Economy

Tula Connell — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:41:48 -0400

George W. Bush's solution to our nation's economic mess—that his failed policies helped create—is to applaud people who must work three jobs to make ends meet.

Sen. John McCain colors his solution to working families' financial struggles with similar crayons: He encourages us to make a living selling stuff on eBay. As reported on Bloomberg:

McCain, seeking to address voter anxiety about the economy, uses eBay to signal that he is ``fundamentally optimistic about the capacity of the U.S. economy to innovate, for that innovation to give new opportunities for jobs,'' said Doug Holtz-Eakin, the candidate's senior economic adviser. "We shouldn't be obsessed with looking backwards all the time, and saying, 'Gee, where did those jobs go?' "

Why worry indeed? After all, top McCain adviser Randy Altschuler is fond of an India-based company whose mission is to convince U.S. companies to outsource jobs to India. McCain also takes economic advice from a former lobbyist for a bank with interests in the housing market—and then there's Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top economic adviser to McCain who acknowledges McCain doesn’t want to include labor and environmental standards in trade agreements.

McCain's support for a flea-market economy based on eBay is fundamental to his disconnect from the realities facing working families. Like Bush, McCain recently admitted he doesn't know the price of gas. Guess what? Working families sure do.

Stumping for the presidential primaries, McCain has snubbed America's workers by:

· Promoting failed trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) while standing in front of a failed factory in Ohio.
· Holding a town hall meeting at Worth & Co., a Bucks County, Pa., contracting company investigated by the state Department of Labor and Industry for “intentionally failing to pay the predetermined minimum wage” to its employees. The state has accused the company of cheating employees out of $142,000 in wages for government projects.
· Not bothering to respond to invitations by union members holding roundtables on the economy.

This is how McCain's treats workers when he needs votes. Imagine what a McCain presidency would be like for working families when he thinks he has a mandate to govern.

McCain Pledges Allegiance to NAFTA

Robert Borosage — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:16:55 -0400

Arizona Sen. John McCain continues his rousing campaign tour of the swing states of NAFTA this week. He will celebrate July 3 in Mexico City after a jaunt through Colombia to pledge support for the pending free trade accord with that center of cocaine trade. He surely will increase his margin over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama among business elites in Mexico and Canada. Obama will travel to Zanesville, Ohio, once more exposing himself to McCain's jibes about embracing "protectionist" policies.

No, this isn't a joke. McCain is stumping Colombia and Mexico, a week after his visit to Ottawa, championing the North American Free Trade Agreement to business elites in those countries.

McCain's has a pat routine for these junkets. He piously intones homilies on the benefits of free trade: "We need stand up for free trade with no ifs, ands or buts about it. We let trade and globalization be politicized at our own peril." He repeats a sanctimonious pledge never to "dishonor" America by even contemplating any deviation from the "sacred" NAFTA treaty. He issues stern condemnations of the dangers of "mindless protectionism." And expresses his fervent faith in the ability of American workers to compete with anyone anywhere.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, goes the old saw. And with McCain, it seems ever more obvious that you can't trust an old salt on a new ocean. He simply doesn't get it. For years, the trade debate featured the above mantra he repeats. Trade, by definition, benefited America. Sure, a few privileged union workers might lose their cushy jobs and padded salaries, but they would find new jobs in the expanding global economy. Americans would prosper from investments abroad, our financial services industry would capture the high end of the expanded world economy, we'd sustain our manufacturing edge by becoming more productive and we'd benefit from lower priced goods imported from abroad. The earth was flat, Tom Friedman taught us, and we're all the better for it.

Except it hasn't quite worked out like that. Productivity went up, but wages stagnated at best and insecurity increased. Corporations clubbed workers with the threat of moving abroad, and cut back on salaries, job security, and benefits like health care and pensions. Families went ever deeper into debt as the cost of basics—education, health care, retirement security, and now food and gas—soared. More and more workers lost good jobs, only to be forced into those that paid less with fewer benefits. And now with the global workforce effectively doubled as China and India and the former Soviet Union joined the global maw, it isn't just industrial workers at risk, but some 30 million jobs that could face offshoring, according to such sober free trade advocates as Alan Blinder. Financial services did prosper, until their greed and gambling blew up in the housing bubble.

The U.S. went further and further into global debt, running up trade deficits that are still $2 billion a day despite the decline in the dollar. Last month, the Chinese announced they were netting $2.5 billion a month—$100 million an hour—in foreign exchange. Their sovereign investment funds are now hunting for good deals across the world.

NAFTA, sold as a source of jobs for the U.S. and a solution to the immigration flows from Mexico, hasn't worked that way either. Our trade deficit with Mexico has soared from a basic balance before NAFTA to an all-time high of $74.3 billion last year. Mexico now exports more cars to the United States than the U.S. exports to the world. Immigration tensions grew as small farmers got displaced in Mexico by subsidized U.S. food exports, and started coming north in large numbers.

Elites found ways to protect themselves. Lawyers, doctors, prescription drug companies use licensing and patent laws to protect their wages and profits, but most Americans worry about how their kids were going to sustain a middle-class life style. Globalization isn't the only reason the middle class is declining—the war on labor, the worship of the CEO and other factors contribute—but it certainly is a significant reason.

And across the world, developing countries discovered the NAFTA model didn't work for them either. The countries that have enjoyed success—the Asian tigers, China—play by a very different set of rules. They target industries, and pursue aggressive mercantilist policies to capture export markets. They run up large foreign reserves to be able to protect their currencies from global speculators. China's bosses have been happy to lend us the money to keep buying the goods our companies were making over there—and will manipulate the value of their currency until they capture the markets they are seeking. But it is hard to argue, as McCain does, that free trade is spreading democracy across the world when the most successful economy is a communist dictatorship.

Now even champions of free trade, like former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers admit this hasn't quite worked out as they hoped. Across the world, the revolt against the corporate trade model is growing. In the U.S., a majority —58 percent—of those polled in a January 2008 Wall Street Journal/NBC survey agreed that "globalization has been bad... because it has subjected U.S. companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor."

We face not a choice between "free trade" and "isolationism," as McCain claims, but the challenge of developing a serious strategy for sustaining a robust middle class in a global economy. It isn't a choice between keeping our word and "dishonoring" our commitments, but making a clear reassessment of how we get out of the hole we are in.

Sherrod Brown was elected to the Senate in 2006 through a campaign in Ohio focused on opposition to the trade treaties that have devastated manufacturing jobs in that state. He now has joined with other senators, unions, family farm groups, religious and public interest groups to put forth the TRADE Act. The bill calls for a halt on all new trade accords until the U.S. Comptroller General undertakes a comprehensive assessment of the benefits and the costs of our current agreements, looking at who has benefited—here and abroad—and who has suffered. The legislation then calls for developing a strategy that insures that the benefits of trade are widely shared, that we pursue a policy designed to benefit working people and Main Street, and not simply Wall Street. Obama has laid out elements of an alternative strategy that may form the basis of a new course.

McCain's response to this is like an Inquisition priest discovering free thinking in the pews. Doctrine is sacrosanct. Questioning it is dishonorable. He calls upon Americans to sustain the course we have been on, like lemmings marching stolidly to the sea.

He pretends this is an American tradition, claiming that "every time the United States has become protectionist... we've paid a very heavy price." But this ignores the entire history of this country's rise—with sharp eyed mercantilist trade policies behind tariff walls—to a world economic power with a broad middle class. "Yankee traders" were famed for cutting a tough, practical deal, not for sacrificing their interests for ideological principles.

Nor is McCain such an innocent. He says we mustn't "politicize" trade accords, but trade accords are already heavily politicized. Every trade agreement—particularly NAFTA—features fierce lobbying over every clause. McCain knows this because his entire campaign is staffed from top to bottom by corporate lobbyists, many of whom have earned a hefty buck lobbying to influence and pass trade accords. If McCain is elected, their clients know that they are in line to be first to the trough.

Saint John doesn't sully his rhetoric with these unseemly realities. He seems to want to make trade policy a centerpiece of his election campaign, and doing so will surely help him raise some dough. Obama should take him up on it. Let McCain stump the business elites of Mexico City, Bogota and Ottawa. Obama can join Sherrod Brown championing the concerns of working people in Zanesville and Flint and Pittsburgh. Let voters decide which candidate has his priorities right.

This post originally appeared on HuffingtonPost.com.

NAFTA-Type Deals Sour Public on Free Trade

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:57:51 -0400

Forty-eight percent of the people responding to an April 2008 Pew Research Center poll said that free trade agreements are a bad thing for the country, compared with 35 percent who call them a good thing. In that same poll, 61 percent of respondents said that free trade causes job losses, 56 percent said it lowers wages and 50 percent said it slows the economy.

Colombia Trade Deal Is Derailed. Let's Keep It Off the Tracks

Tula Connell — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0400

In August 2004, Hector Alino Martinez and three other Colombian trade unionists were dragged out of their homes and assassinated in the streets of Caño Seco. The men were among 96 unionists killed in Colombia that year. But supporters of Bush's drive to ram the Colombia Free Trade Agreement through Congress must think a few dozen murdered trade unionists a year is OK—because they are basing their support for the deal by saying the number of murdered unionists in Colombia has dropped off in recent years. After all, there were "only" 39 killed there in 2007.

Which is why the successful move by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to take Bush's Colombia trade bill out of Fast Track is such a victory for workers here and in Colombia.

Bush really wanted to slam the Colombia deal through Congress. And because the trade agreement was negotiated while the now-expired Fast Track trade-promotion authority still was operative, lawmakers had only 90 legislative days to consider it after Bush sent it to Congress April 8. Now with the Colombia FTA out of Fast Track—a move none of its supporters anticipated—the trade deal is "dead." According to whom? According to Bush:

…that bill is dead unless the speaker schedules a definite vote. This was an unprecedented move.

For once, he got it right. Democrats in Congress caught supporters of a trade deal flat-footed. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) whined that the vote was “cheating.” Not so. Rules give the House the authority to revoke Fast Track, which in addition to creating a timeline for votes on trade bills bars lawmakers from amending agreements—so there's no way to make sure Bush-backed agreements include protections for workers' rights or the environment.

Under a Republican-controlled Congress, Bush steamrolled every piece of anti-worker, anti-consumer legislation he could, like the deeply flawed and massively overpriced Medicare prescription drug legislation in 2003. Now, he and his Republican backers face opposition. But it's up to us to make sure we hold the feet of Congress to the fire so it's not revived as a result of pressure from the bill's supporters. Supporters like visiting Harvard professor Edward Schumacher-Matos, who recently wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece:

Union members have been assassinated, but the reported number is highly exaggerated. Even one murder for union organizing is atrocious, but isolated killings do not justify holding up the trade agreement.

Dismissing brutal murders as "isolated" incidents is bad enough. But "isolated" in no way describes the killings of 2,550 trade unionists since 1986.

Clearly, moral arguments like the sanctity of human life don't work with the Bush crowd. Those like Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who says the Colombian government is making progress in decreasing violence against labor leaders. In fact, the Colombian government has successfully prosecuted less than 3 percent of cases involving murdered trade unionists.

So what would a trade deal with Colombia do? Essentially, it would continue to do the same as all the other bad trade deals Bush has negotiated—destroy jobs. And those aren't only low-wage jobs that have moved—we are losing ground in advanced technology products, autos and even aerospace. Tradable services—from call centers to legal research to airline maintenance—also are increasingly being off-shored. In the past five years, American workers have lost almost 3 million manufacturing jobs, many due to the failures of our trade policy. Meanwhile, the Bush trade agenda contributed to a trade deficit of $712 billion in 2007.

Workers in countries on the other side of these trade deals aren't benefiting, either. Last week, Benedicto Martinez Orozco, co-president of a Mexican trade union, described what happened to workers in his country after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed:

"In the first years, thousands of middle-sized businesses closed, and that left thousands more workers without jobs," Mr. Martinez said through an interpreter.

The result, he said, was that there were many people who became very rich, while now 14 years later, about half the population of the country is either underemployed or unemployed.

In just the last six years, he said, wages have deteriorated by 60 percent; so while the minimum wage is 51 pesos, or between $4.50 and $5 a day, a kilogram of meat, which is about 2 pounds, costs 70 pesos.

In Mexico, Mr. Martinez said, the climate for workers and their ability to organize has gotten more harsh since NAFTA was passed, as large corporations have pressured the government to change its labor laws. Recent regulations have limited collective bargaining and restricted the ability of workers to strike.

Maybe now we're getting at the crux of the push for these deals: They don't guarantee any rights for workers, they weaken unions and create a low-wage labor pool global corporations can exploit.

Much of the major press has been following along in lockstep with the argument that the Colombia trade deal must pass, regardless of that government's disregard for human rights. But The Washington Post especially outdid itself with an editorial whose brutally insensitive headline, Drop Dead, Colombia, illustrates all too well the disconnect between the elitist press and the suffering of working people. The Post wasn't highlighting the egregious murders of trade unionists. It was bemoaning the successful move in the House to derail the bill.

The support for this measure is so strong among powerful lawmakers and their media mouthpieces, we must keep up the pressure to ensure if it ever gets introduced—this year or next—Congress will vote it down. Click here to tell your representative to oppose a trade deal with Colombia until its government makes real progress in protecting the lives and rights of union members.

USLEAP also has created two Mother's Day cards you can choose from to send to your loved one, letting her know you made a donation to the labor group's Flower Workers Economic Justice project (Colombia produces 62 percent of all the flowers brought into the United States).