Colombia

The Week of Walking Backwards

Leo Gerard — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:01:36 -0400

As the Occupy Wall Street movement spread across the nation last week, politicians in D.C. flipped the bird at protesters – including those camping in Washington’s McPherson Square.

Here’s how: While occupiers sought political focus on the unemployment, impoverishment and foreclosures suffered by the nation’s non-rich 99 percent, politicians considered three major pieces of legislation and passed only the one that will help the wealthiest 1 percent and hurt the remaining 99 percent.

Senate Republicans murdered-by-filibuster the American Jobs Act, which would surtax the 1 percent to provide jobs for the 99 percent. The Senate did pass the currency manipulation bill, but House GOP leaders refused to schedule a vote on the measure that would protect jobs for the 99 percent by punishing countries that undervalue their currencies to artificially lower prices on their exports.

By contrast, both houses of Congress adopted the so-called Free Trade Agreements with Panama, Colombia and Korea, which will, just like their predecessor NAFTA, destroy jobs held by the 99 percent.

It’s incredible. Inexplicable. Inexcusable. In a country where joblessness is a painful 9.1 percent. Where one in five children lives in poverty. Where foreclosures rose again last month. Where a whole movement is growing to protest the appeasement of the rich at the cost of the middle class. In that place, Congress chose to walk backwards. It didn’t take two steps forward – which it could have by passing the currency bill and jobs act. No. It just took a giant step backward by embracing job-killing trade agreements.

It all forces the 99 percent to demand even more loudly: Where’s the jobs?

WHERE’S THE JOBS?

Either the Occupy Wall Street protesters aren’t loud enough or the politicians in Washington refuse to listen. It’s not just street demonstrators who politicians can’t seem to hear. Poll after poll has shown Americans’ first priority, their major concern is jobs.

Yet when President Obama proposes the American Jobs Act, a measure that would create 1.9 million jobs and ease taxes on the middle class and small businesses, Republicans in the Senate rebuff it. If the majority ruled, the jobs act would have passed the Senate with 51 Democrats in favor. But in the Senate, the GOP stops all action by requiring 60 votes to end their filibusters. They talk and talk and talk. And Americans who need jobs get nothing.

Where’s the jobs?

Amazingly, in a city frozen by political gridlock, the Senate passed with bipartisan support the currency manipulation bill. The legislation would make it easier for the United States to punish market-distorting currency undervaluing by imposing tariffs. The measure is crucial to stop what now seems an inexorable rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China, which continuously kills American manufacturing and jobs.

Last month that deficit rose to a record $28.96 billion, an increase of $2 billion over one month’s time. Over the past decade, 57,000 U.S. factories have closed and 6 million jobs have disappeared, with deliberate currency undervaluing by China a major factor. Though employment rose overall last month, the nation lost 13,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs.

The currency manipulation bill has 225 co-signers in the House, more than the majority it needs to pass. But Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has said he will not permit the chamber to vote on it. He will thwart an attempt to end the practice that is destroying American jobs – even though Republicans in both the House and Senate support it.

Where’s the jobs, Boehner?

Then Congress passed the Free Trade Agreements. Despite the incessant claims that the three will create “tens of thousands of jobs,” it’s clear that they won’t because simultaneously Congress finally renewed the lapsed Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers who lose their jobs as a result of free trade.

Here’s what the New York Times said about the agreements and jobs:

“Economists generally predict that free trade agreements, which eliminate tariffs and other policies aimed at protecting domestic manufacturers, benefit all participating nations by creating a larger common market, increasing sales and reducing prices. But such deals also create clear losers, as workers lose well-paid jobs to foreign competition.”

The United States can’t afford to lose any more manufacturing jobs. Yet it is projected that these agreements will particularly damage the U.S. textile, electronics and auto supply industries.

Again and again, politicians told Americans that NAFTA would create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. It did the opposite. Why would something different occur with these three copycat deals?

Where’s the jobs?

This is what the Times editorial board said about Republicans:

“The Republicans offer no actual economic plans, only tired slogans about cutting regulations and spending, and ending health care reform. The party seems content to run out the clock on Mr. Obama’s term while doing very little. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, accused Republicans of trying to “suffocate the economy” in hopes that the pain would work to their political advantage. They are doing little to refute that charge.”

As the Occupy Wall Street movement has shown, America can’t wait. The middle class needs help now.

Where’s the jobs?

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.

Rangel: Obama Aides Sending Pro-NAFTA Expansion Signals

David Sirota — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:21:10 -0500

In my column last week, I praised the Obama team for suggesting they see the political and policy danger of backing President Bush's proposed NAFTA expansion into Colombia - a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world. But now I see this little tidbit from Inside U.S. Trade:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) in a wide-ranging interview yesterday (Nov. 20) expressed optimism that President-elect Barack Obama will support passage of the Colombia and Panama free trade agreements during his time in office...

“I did not talk directly with the president-elect over Colombia, but everything that I heard from those people that [are] talking with him, [is] that he thought he could handle that and get it passed during his administration,” Rangel said.

Rangel is the chairman of the committee that oversees trade, so this can't be chalked up to uninformed speculation - this is likely real, though by no means concrete. Team Obama knows 70 new Democratic members were elected on explicitly anti-NAFTA themes, they know Obama campaigned throughout the industrial Midwest promising to change our trade policy; and they know that in the third presidential debate Obama explicitly reiterated his opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

They're going to have to weigh all that against the pressure they're feeling from their corporate donors to pass this NAFTA expansion. If they go forward, we could see a pretty tumultuous battle ensue.

Wash Post Re-Floats Possibility of Lame-Duck NAFTA Expansion

David Sirota — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:26:21 -0500

Glenn Greenwald long ago taught us why we should always look skeptically at the fact-free prognostications of the Washington Post's Steve Pearlstein. That said, this line in Pearlstein's column today caught my eye today (h/t lutton):

"The haggling now [about the automaker bailout] is over the appropriate mechanism. My guess is that the whole thing will be wrapped up shortly after Thanksgiving, perhaps in a holiday package that will include congressional approval (but delayed implementation) of the free-trade agreement with Colombia." (emphasis added)

My last newspaper column explored how the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is about nothing other than serving corporate interests; how poll after poll after poll has shown Americans intensely oppose such NAFTA expansions; how in 2006 and 2008, a total of 69 new congressional lawmakers - mostly Democrats - won on an explicit promise to stop NAFTA expansions; and how therefore, the Republican push for this trade deal is a political ploy designed to fracture Democrats much like NAFTA fractured them in 1993.

Pearlstein admits that his prediction is a "guess" - which, in journalism speak, usually means it is the reporter's wish, but the reporter knows most of the facts align against that wish. That's probably especially true in this instance, considering even NAFTA proponent Rahm Emanuel has said Democrats are not going to support tying any economic stimulus or automaker bailout package to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Emanuel may support corporate-written trade policies - but he's a political operator first and foremost, and likely understands what I was getting at in my column.

That said, the fact that the Washington Post's top business columnist feels the need to longingly push out this possibility shows us that the fight to reform our trade policy is far from over. The corporate media Establishment has long been one of the most powerful forces pushing mindless free-trade fundamentalism - and that Establishment is not about to let up.

UPDATE: For more on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, check out the Economic Policy Institute's recent backgrounder.

It's a Trick - Get An Axe

David Sirota — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:26:47 -0500

"It's a trick - get an axe." - Ash

This fearful and prescient line, spoken by Bruce Campbell's character in the cult film Army of Darkness, is a good political strategy for Democrats in the final weeks of the Bush administration. All of this media nonsense about Bush being magnanimous and showing a bipartisan spirit of cooperation in the transition is a trick - and Democrats better be ready to get a legislative axe to fight back.

Case in point is what happened this past week. It seemed, at first glance, strange - really strange. Why would President Bush make a massive economic stimulus package and aid to automakers contingent on Democratic support for a relatively tiny trade deal with a Latin American nation that has one of the worst human rights records in the world? Why would our gambling president, who always bets big, ask for something so seemingly small? Those are the questions I examine in my new syndicated newspaper column this week, and the answer is pretty clear: It's a trick...time to get an axe.

Specifically, Bush is looking both to cement the NAFTA trade model, and tear apart the Democratic congressional majority before it has time to unify behind a bold agenda.

In terms of direct economic impact, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is a drop in the bucket (though because it pits American workers into a salary-cutting competition with foreign workers who can be killed for joining a union, it will put additional downward pressure on domestic wages). It's outsized relevance in this week's high-profile Oval Office meeting between President Bush and President-elect Barack Obama was as a political instrument - not an economic one - a tool to wedge apart the Democratic Party.

There's clear historical precedent for that. Go read Rick MacArthur's timeless book "The Selling of Free Trade" and you'll see how Bush's father dropped NAFTA into the lap of the last new Democratic administration, and it was NAFTA that then fractured the congressional Democratic majority between its Wall Street wing and its progressive wing; thus demoralizing the progressive movement, scuttling health care reform, and helping birth the 1994 Republican revolution.

Fortunately, the Obama team appears to see what Bush is trying to do. In a bit of strange bedfellows, Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel - the same Rahm Emanuel who championed NAFTA as a Clinton staffer - has said Obama will not support linking the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to economic stimulus. That's good policy and good politics - the latter both because of the resounding election mandate against NAFTA-style trade deals, and because it will prevent Bush's last-ditch effort to fracture the Democratic Party.

You can read the whole column here.

The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

State Legislators Say No to Colombia Free Trade Deal

David Sirota — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:09:46 -0400

From Public Citizen:

National Conference of State Legislatures Slams Pro-Colombia FTA Resolution as Colombia Presidential Advisor Linked to Paramilitaries Is Arrested

State and Local Legislators Continue to Lead the Fight Against Failed NAFTA Status Quo Trade Policies That Undermine Their Authority to Enact Policy

WASHINGTON, D.C. - State legislators' sound rejection today of a resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to approve the Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) sent another strong signal that the trade agreement has very limited support, said Public Citizen.

The pro-Colombia FTA resolution, introduced by a Republican Florida state legislator, was resoundingly rejected by a two-to-one margin in the Labor and Economic Development committee as the Colombian ambassador observed the spring meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) today in Washington, D.C.

"That a bipartisan organization representing state legislatures so resoundingly rejects the Colombia FTA sends a loud signal that most Americans do not want to be connected with either an expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the Colombian government's record of horrible human rights atrocities," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division.

State legislators really are leading the way on trade. You may remember that it was Montana state legislators who successfully pressured Max Baucus into backing off his support for "fast track" trade authority. Now, our state legislators are leading again. Will the Democratic Congress listen?

From Jack Welch's Screeds to George Bush's Mouth

David Sirota — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:45:29 -0400

General Electric's former CEO Jack Welch is one of the great economic royalists of the modern day. He is the guy who said the businessman's dream is to "have every plant you own on a barge" - so that the plant can move away anytime workers demand better wages, working conditions or environmental standards. So it is no surprise that Welch is spending his retirement years penning warmed-over press releases for the back page of Businessweek - the latest of which repackages the same tired arguments for NAFTA trade model that have drowned out every rational economic argument for the last two decades.

What's telling about the piece is how vapid it really is. In 594 words, we are given just three selective statistics that portray NAFTA as a net plus for domestic employment, wages and exports - despite the more macro statistics that show NAFTA has been a net job killer, driven down wages and exacerbated our trade deficits. The rest of the Welch press release is rhetoric about the wonders of free market ideology - ya know, the same free market ideology that created the financial crisis.

We could write this off as the silly ramblings of a past-his-prime CEO, except the propaganda goes from Jack Welch's screeds to George Bush's mouth. As the Associated Press reports, Bush used a pro-NAFTA conference with Mexico and Canada to reiterate his demand for Congress to pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Here's the key comment from our President:

"It makes no sense to me to say that Colombian goods can come into our country duty-free, yet our goods can't go into Colombia duty-free,'' Bush said sternly. "And yet that's the case. An agreement with Colombia would level the playing field.''

The statement teems with Welch-ian ignorance, telling us that this MBA president has almost no concept of basic economic history. It makes perfect sense that American goods can't go into Colombia duty free. Such tariff protection is the way developing world countries (and that includes pre-industrial America) have always built themselves into modernized countries: They protect their infant industries so that those industries can become competitive. As Ha-Joon Chang shows in his book Bad Samaritans, this has been Economics 101 for most of modern history - until the present era, when corporations started buying trade policy like just another commodity.

The alternative was seen - not coincidentally - in NAFTA. Because that trade deal forced Mexico to stop protecting its agricultural industries, multinational agribusiness was able to wipe out indigenous farmers, causing economic unrest in Mexico, and a major increase in illegal immigration pressure at our southern border as out-of-work farmers headed north looking for jobs.

This isn't to say that all tariffs are a good thing - not even close. But the fact that an American president says he has no idea why a developing world country would protect its economy displays a stunning level of stupidity.

One thing that Bush is right about: It does make no sense that Colombian goods come into the United States duty free - especially when you consider that the Colombian government looks the other way when corporations partner with death squads to execute union organizers. In fact, "looks the other way" is putting it mildly. As the AP reports today, many high-ranking Colombian government officials are tied to the paramilitary death squads responsible for the oppression. That includes close allies to President Uribe like his own cousin.

Here's the deal: When we give the duty-free status to countries that allow corporations to engage in inhumane or unacceptable cost-cutting behavior (ie. killing union organizers, degrading the environment, enslaving workers, etc.), we are providing an economic incentive for businesses to engage in that behavior. Without any kind of social tariff, we are effectively telling corporations that it's AOK with us for them to pick up their operations in America and head to places like Colombia, where they can cut their labor costs by hiring hit men to kill off pesky union organizers that might get the workforce to demand better wages. And that kind of policy is not just immoral - it's self-destructive for our own interests. American workers cannot economically compete with workers who get shot for forming a union.

And that gets us back to what really drives our trade policy these days: Jack Welch's "barge" ideology. The goal of policies like NAFTA and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement are not to better nations' economies - it is to better the bottom line of corporate campaign contributors, regardless of whether that destroys nations' economies.

REUTERS: Pelosi Offers Hope for Colombia Trade Deal

David Sirota — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:53:21 -0400

A lot of people gave me flack for simply pointing out that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership were saying they delayed the lobbyist-written Colombia Free Trade Agreement not to stop it, but to pass it. I was merely relaying Pelosi's own words, and now Reuters finally reports what I have been saying for the better part of two weeks. Under the headline "Pelosi offers some hope for U.S.-Colombia trade deal," the newswire reports on Pelosi's latest admission that her stalling tactic is aimed at passing the deal and rewarding Colombia's murderous right-wing government:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered some hope on Wednesday for congressional passage of a free trade agreement with Colombia, but said it would fail if the White House tries to jam the deal down Congress' throat.

"Perhaps we can get some of the trade agreements through. We did get the Peru trade agreement recently in a bipartisan way," Pelosi said in a speech to the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, whose members were in Washington to push Congress to approve the Colombia free trade pact and two others with Panama and South Korea.

"I've told the White House we stand ready to discuss with them how we can proceed in bringing this legislation to the floor. I said 'you want to do it the way you want to do it, it will lose. You just want to jam it down the throat of Congress, it will lose'," Pelosi said.

Again, Pelosi has been saying this from the beginning. But national reporters don't want to report that, and even many progressive leaders in Washington are trying to pretend that the delay was an entirely positive and benevolent move.

I sympathize a little bit with that latter group - we all want to believe the Democratic Party will do the right thing and tell ourselves that the party is acting in good faith. We want to believe it no matter how many times we get trampled by that same party, whether it's NAFTA, PNTR, Peru or any of the other job-killing trade deals that Democrats have rammed through Congress.

But believing that the Democratic Party always operates on behalf of the little guy on these issues is not optimism - it's delusion, especially when we see an army of former Clinton administration officials being paid with Colombian government blood money to pass this deal. On fundamental economic and corporate issues, the Democratic Party - like the Republican Party - answers to money and power - and if this deal is going to be stopped, it is going to require a whole lot of people power to stop it. Because as our Speaker of the House is saying, she's using legislative maneuvers not to prevent this monstrosity from passing, but to prevent it from losing.

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).

Blood Money

David Sirota — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:21:08 -0400

As progressives, we sometimes feel a bit uneasy about making declarative statements about the values people express in their actions. We hesitate, for instance, to call things "evil," not wanting to be like George "Wiith Us, or Against Us" Bush. That's understandable - absolutism can lead to bad places. However, sometimes when confronted with the blatant, undeniable truth, we have to call things out for what they are. That's what I did in my newspaper column today - the first of a two-column series on the anniversary of the Ludlow Massacre. In this column, I discuss the problem with blood money being used to buy off the Democratic Party.

We are watching our government attempt to ratify the murderous legacy of Ludlow on the world stage through its proposed Colombia Free Trade Agreement. That pact, opposed by Colombian labor, human rights and religious leaders (among others), would reward the murderous Colombian government - a government that has effectively condoned mass murders of union organizers; a government that allows union persecution to continue; a government whose president himself has been caught on videotape commiserating with death squad leaders.

The worst part is the behavior of Democratic Party - the supposed party of the voiceless. Bush and his corporate pals have long ago stopped pretending they represent anything other than Big Money - no matter how much death and destruction that Big Money sows. But Democrats were just elected in 2006 pledging to fight for fair, humane trade policies. But now with Colombian blood money flowing to a powerful cadre of Clintonites, congressional Democrats moved yesterday to delay the Colombian trade deal for the explicit purposes of making sure it ultimately passes.

This is a very important point that has gone almost completely unreported by the media - even as Democrats go on record making statement after statement explicitly saying they are delaying the deal in order to pass it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's move yesterday to delay the deal is being billed as some sort of great victory. And while sure, it's great that the pact didn't actually pass yesterday, Pelosi herself has said she made the move to prevent the bill from being voted down.

The New York Times barely mentioned that "Ms. Pelosi and other Democrats said their intent was not to kill the agreement," adding that "under the right conditions, a sufficient number of them could probably be found to join with Republicans in approving the pact with Colombia." Pelosi herself said she delayed the Colombia deal because "If brought to the floor immediately, it would lose." Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY) - who never met a corporate lobbyist he didn't try to shakedown - told Roll Call the delay "is actually going to save [the pact] instead of kill it" because it would have been defeated on the floor otherwise.

This is the power and pervasiveness of blood money and what it buys from both parties in Washington. We should not hestitate to label that money in those terms - nor should we hesitate to ask why the Democratic Party thinks it is acceptable to align with this kind of regime. The lawmakers who pretend to weep and cry at the atrocities in Tibet and Darfur maneuver to reward a Colombian government that helps commit human rights atrocities. It makes you wonder if their outrage over Tibet and Darfur comes only because they aren't getting blood money from the Chinese and the Sudanese governments.

You can read the whole column at the Denver Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Ft. Collins Coloradoan, The Vail Daily, TruthDig, Credo Action or Creators. Or, you can listen to my podcast of it here. The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.