I keep thinking that there will be a limit on how far thinking people will go to turn a blind eye to the death and misery brought to us courtesy of so-called "free trade". But, lo and behold, every day brings new wonders at the capacity of our government, and its servants in the "free market", to ignore reality in the service of profits and "efficiency" and "low costs". Prepare yourself for another example coming down the pipeline this week when the Administration tries to ram another so-called "free trade" deal down the throats of the Congress—-and down the throats of the American people.
The uproar over Mark Penn’s work for the Colombian government, and his resignation from the Clinton campaign, has partly obscured the content of the issue (most of the traditional media and, frankly, progressive media and blogs, have been far more focused on Penn and the political/electoral insider story than the actual Colombia deal). This pact, which is in a whole lot of trouble, as it should be, is awful for a variety of reasons. But, the main one is this: union activists and leaders have a funny way of ending up dead in Colombia, courtesy of death squads that have been linked to the government.
More than a year ago, I wrote an extensive blog on the Colombia so-called "free trade" deal, focusing on the threat to union activists. It was about a real person, Pedro Arenas, not the imaginary phantoms called "efficiency", "competitiveness" and "globalization". A real person.
To add a bit more: A 2007 report found that Colombia accounted for more than half of the worldwide murders of trade unionists.And there are some other details here.
A recent letter by human rights leadersto Colombia’s president, Álvaro Uribe laid out additional facts:
We write to express our deep concern about the recent wave of threats, attacks and killings of human rights defenders and trade unionists in connection with the March 6 demonstrations against state and paramilitary human rights violations. We urge you to publicly and immediately adopt effective measures to stop this violence.
Over the course of one week, between March 4 and March 11, four trade unionists, some of whom were reportedly associated with the March 6 demonstration, were killed (see footnote). Members of human rights organizations have also been subject to a large number of physical attacks and harassment. Their offices have also been broken into and equipment and files have been stolen.
Of course, there are quite odious direct economic consequences to this deal. The deal would give duty-free U.S. access for flowers and certain other commercial-scale agri-export crops and certainly put pressure on Colombia to expand agribusiness plantations for such exports. These plantations have been a disaster for the regular farmer. Indeed, under pressure in the 1990s from international lending organizations, Colombia implemented a program of "economic openness," which unleashed a tide of traditional cereals, rice and oats pouring into the country. As a result, 1.1 million hectares of cultivated land were lost, pushing at least 300,000 farmers to turn to cultivating coca.
Foreign investor rights—-a typical pro-corporate, so-called "free trade," measure—-would tighten the grip that large corporations have on the country’s natural resources and launch a large-scale plundering of those resources such as timber and minerals. Without a government willing to nationalize such resources or, at the very least, make sure that the benefits of the commercial exploitation are widely spread, you can be sure that huge riches will flow to a handful of people, while most of the population is left with pennies.
The upshot: the so-called "free trade" deal would likely displace hundreds of thousands of poor rural Colombians from their lands, sending them into far deeper economic despair—and forcing many of them to work for the very groups that violently displaced them from their lands. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs conducted a study of the effects of the 1990s economic "liberalization" and concluded that such a move led to a 35 per cent drop in employment. You can be sure that the proposed so-called "free trade" deal will wreak similar havoc.
But, because a lot of money is at stake—money for large corporations who want to exploit cheaper labor—no one should assume that this agreement is dead (after all, NAFTA only passed, ushering in a new era of so-called "free trade" deals", because Bill Clinton cut a whole host of deals to buy Congressional Democratic votes).
The tactics of the pro so-called "free trade" advocates are amazingly consistent: trot out statistics, numbers and arguments that are outright lies. That has proven to be the case with virtually every so-called "free trade" deal passed since NAFTA. The Columbia agreement is no different.
Is Colombia an extreme example? Advocates of so-called "free trade" will no doubt say, "well, we don’t support death squads but Colombia is not typical." The problem is that Colombia’s conditions can simply be plotted on a spectrum of bad to worse when it comes to the consequences of so-called "free trade." There may not be roving paramilitary death squads in Mexico (though political violence is still a fact of life there, too), Guatemala, Honduras, or other countries. But, the underlying dynamic for so-called "free trade" is corrosive: driving down wages and seeking the lowest cost, compliant labor pool possible. Period. These are damaged deals--if you are one of the millions of workers here and abroad who have suffered the loss of jobs, declining wages and a work environment where all the power rests with corporations.
So, where are we in the process. Once the Administration sends the agreement to Congress, the House and Senate have 90 days to bring the deal up for an up-or-down-vote under the so-called "fast track" procedure. "Fast track" is one of those quaint euphemisms for something you don’t understand but will screw you—it basically means your member of Congress has no right to suggest amendments to make a trade deal better. Nope, you can only vote "yes" or "no". (as an aside, "fast track" authority has not been renewed so future trade deals will not operate under that procedure—-we hope—-but it still is in effect for pending deals like Colombia).
Right now, there is some question about whether the deal will die simply because the Administration sends it to the Hill this week despite Nancy Pelosi’s warning not to do so. Last week, National Journal’s Congress DailyPM’s April 3rd edition reported that:
Even Democratic supporters of the Colombia deal are warning that sending the agreement without Pelosi's assent could cost votes. A labor source suggested that if Bush sends the agreement, Pelosi should not wait 60 days to act -- rather she should hold an immediate vote and let the agreement fail. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, who has expressed some support for the deal although he has not said how he would vote, said Wednesday it would likely be defeated if a vote were held soon. At a forum sponsored by lobbying groups, House Majority Whip Clyburn today said the fate of the Colombia agreement rests with Pelosi. "It's basically up to Nancy Pelosi. She decides whether it comes to the floor. If it gets in good enough shape, it will pass," Clyburn said.
The problem, as I see it, is simple: presuming that 95 percent of the Republican caucus will vote for the deal, you can basically kill this deal with a unified Democratic caucus. But, that isn’t a done deal. The Democratic caucus is split into three groups: a group who will vote for any so-called "free trade" deal (they generally fall into the category of 15-20 Democrats who voted for deals like the Central American Free Trade Agreement—my favorite is William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson); a group that will vote against so-called "free trade" because they understand that it is just an empty, dangerous marketing phrase (Marcy Kaptur is one of the leaders in the House and Sherrod Brown gets kudos in the Senate); and, finally, a group that would vote for deals with conditions and sweeteners, and is seduced that to be against so-called "free trade" is to be against trade.
So, for example, there is an attempt to make the Colombian pact "better" by putting more money in for retraining:
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives want to pass a Colombia free trade agreement this year, but problems with the deal and legislation to help displaced workers still must be worked out, House Majority Whip James Clyburn said on Thursday.
Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees trade deals, told the same group the Bush administration might formally submit the Colombia free trade deal to Congress next week, setting off a 90-day timetable for Congress to act on it.
If Congress does not debate the measure this year it likely would face tougher prospects next year, when more anti-trade Democrats could populate the House and Senate following November's election, McCrery said.
We’ve seen this movie before: when so-called "free trade" is exposed to be a farce, proponents buy off a few votes with promises of better labor and environmental provisions and/or more money for retraining of workers—both of which are poor excuses to try to fix a flawed basic idea. Retraining people is just an utter false promise, as I outlined in an extensive critique. And I've also highlighted numerous times (including here) why the side agreements on labor and the environment are empty.
So, we have people like Clyburn, Rangel, Jim Moran who might vote for the deal (Rangel has been shaky on the subject for a long time). Some of the positions of Democratic members are hard to fathom. Take Brad Ellsworth from the 8th District of Indiana. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dropped a big ad buy for him in his race in 2006 when he defeated a Republican incumbent by specifically tying the incumbent to a bad record on trade. Here is the text of the ad:
Communities crumbling, families struggling: too many local jobs are being sent to foreign countries. What’s Congress doing? John Hostettler voted to reward companies that outsource, supporting $25 billion in tax breaks for corporations, including those that ship jobs overseas. He even voted to expand NAFTA, which cost Indiana 30,000 jobs. If he’s not looking out for our jobs, then Hostettler just isn’t doing his.
Yet, Ellsworth is, until now, undecided about how to vote on the Colombian deal.
There is only one thing to observe about the demise of Mark Penn, who has long inhabited the bottom of the pond. There are plenty of people surrounding ALL political campaigns—lobbyists, donors or other supporters—who do work for corporations and foreign countries. But the controversy over Penn pocketing cash to push so-called "free trade" is far more important, in my opinion, because it shows that we have turned a corner on the debate about so-called "free trade".
Voters understand that so-called "free trade" is a phony idea-—it’s a marketing phrase. They understand that the claims of advocates of so-called "free trade" are untrue (NAFTA being just the prime example). And this isn’t limited to Democrats, either; a majority of Republican voters don’t believe in so-called "free trade". Wise political observers will note that, if you want to win elections, opposing so-called "free trade" is a smart strategy. And it’s interesting to note that the Penn-Colombia lobbying was first reported by The Wall Street Journal—-the business press is keenly aware that so-called "free trade" is on the ropes.
Frankly, I think the Mark Penn controversy is a sideshow and, having now gotten a pound of flesh, I’m going to guess that political activists will cease pressing their own favorite candidate on the topic. What the media (traditional and new media) should continue to press the candidates on is whether they truly understand the implications of so-called "free trade" on their policy proposals.
It’s the reason that we need to drive a stake through so-called "free trade" and engage in a totally different trade policy. Don’t be fooled by the nonsense of the marketing phrases like "free trade" (it doesn’t exist) and "global economy" or the attacks by the economic elites against "protectionists."
There is nothing new about trade—-we’ve traded among countries and civilizations for the entire course of human history, sometimes by delivering goods that took weeks and months to reach their destination, whereas today such trade can happen in the blink of an eye. What the economic, political and media elites want us to believe is that somehow something magical has happened requiring that we accede to economic realities that are natural and unavoidable.
But, that is utter nonsense. Economics is not nature. It’s a question of power and politics. And the central question is: what are the rules under which trade takes place? This is not difficult to figure out, if you accept, as I do, two basic principles:
- The ultimate goal for trade is to improve the lives of communities around the world.
- If you believe in #1, then, any trade agreement should have at its core, not as after thoughts and "side letters," the principals of democracy, safe and fair-waged work and the preservation of the environment-—for the people of all the countries involved in the deal. Once those principles are laid down as the underpinning of a trade deal, then, we ask how do corporations fulfill those goals. Right now, it’s the exact opposite.
It’s a moment to keep the pressure on.
UPDATE: This from the Associated Press just now--
President Bush will announce that he is sending a controvesial free trade agreement with Colombia to Congress, an administration official said Monday. The move will force a congressional vote within 90 days.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Bush will make the announcement in the White House Rose Garden.
Bush's action will force Congress to take up the proposal under a fast-track process that will require votes within 90 days. Officials said Bush is acting now in order to force a vote before Congress leaves in the fall for the campaign season.