I know I'm going to get slammed by most of the comments, and I am prepared for the onslaught. I suspect there may be some vicious comments too. I would ask for some respect. But I urge you all to please read and have an open mind. Below is why I believe the Democratic Party should support the free trade agreement with Colombia.
Everyone,
I am very disturbed by the sheer naivety going around this quarters on Colombia. People have to get serious about this. There was this poorly substantiated rec'd diary today on why the Clinton campaign should be doomed because Bill has done some lobbying on behalf of the Colombia-US FTA.
This diary may come at a bad time for my candidate, Barack Obama, since he is campaigning in Pennsylvania, a state that has lost over 200,000 jobs in manufacturing according to some estimates. In my heart of hearts, I think he is a free trade Democrat in the same way that Bill Clinton. Moreover, I think he is pandering with his anti-free trade rhetoric. That said, there needs to be stronger discouse on free trade.
First off, US manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979, we have been losing jobs since that year. What else happened in 1979? China hastened its reforms (as the CBO explains), and is now a manufacturing powerhouse. It was simply a natural turn of the economy for businesses to go elsewhere. NAFTA did little to hasten up the rate of job loss in manufacturing (as Figure 1 shows in that link, manufacturing employment actually slightly grew in the 1990s, only to sharply fall after 2001).
Second, Colombia is a low-middle income country, and the United States is the richest economy in the world. It per capita income is less than $3,000. Pennsylvania is nearly $40,000. So if we bring up the argument that workers are struggling, we should at least recognize that in other countries, people are REALLY struggling.
Third, Colombia is a democracy that has been reducing the number (see Figure 1 from the Colombian Embassy) of union workers dying to unscrupulous busters. This is the practice Obama and Clinton are arguing to reject the FTA. Obviously there are still some deaths, but (a) one cannot underestimate the tremendous progress that has been made in the last few years in a historically violent-prone country, and (b) a poorer country is not able to completely eliminate the problem, it only has so much money, otherwise it would be running huge deficits with interest. Free trade may give the country more resources to be able to combat this problem.
Fourth, it is a plus for democracy in Latin America and the US's role in that region, especially with the rise of historically-tested-and-failed populists in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. If anything, Latin America stands to rise, just like East Asia, if it is engaged via free trade.
It is true that East Asia, and the United States, have long held protectionist regimes. But, unlike Latin America, East Asia and the United States dismantled their protections through the advent of free trade (although the US did not dismantle all the protections. This meant the pain has been sharper in rust-belt states like Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania where since 2001 the pain has been acute, it could have been less harmful if the US moved on to different industries sooner). Latin America failed to do this. The result: The "lost decade" of the 1980s, where stagflation, mounting debts, and unemployment and social unrest ravaged the region. Even after some neoliberal reforms, growth has averaged a paltry sub 3% in the region, even though their GDP per capita is not too different from China or India's (which experience growth rates of between 8 and 11%). A reason (not big, but a reason) is that China and not Latin America have been opening their economies to trade. But other factors can help Latin America, including reducing US protections in agriculture (sugar, cotton, tobacco, e.g.), Latin America making further reforms, and ending corruption.
If we reject this, we are flatly saying they do not deserve jobs that belong to them because they can produce the goods more productively but are ours due to market distortions. By letting them produce and freely export the goods they are good at, Colombians' productivity rates will rise, and in turn, wages will rise, which will reduce their poverty.
It is our party that needs to stand on the side of free trade and reform. Do I have sympathy with workers that lose their jobs? Absolutely, I'm from hard-hit Western New York, where Buffalo has been experiencing constant population losses due to steel closures. Many of you know this too. It is absolutely imperative that there are safety nets to help the less fortunate among us, and job retraining, lifelong learning, adequate unemployment insurance, etc. are very important. But let's not use these reasons to argue against an agreement that will have little effect (benefit or harm) on the US, and lots of effect (much more benefit than harm) on Colombia.
Some say we need to take care of our own lot before we help others. I think we can do both. We can raise the minimum wage and pass trade liberalization with other countries. We can get out of Iraq and spend just on helping re-develop the ravaged country (which is a bill far less than the monthly bills we pay for this unjust war). We can extend health care to everyone. But we must not abdicate our role as leading countries out of poverty. Remember, it was the US that rode the backs of people from Africa throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, it was the US that instilled the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary on Latin America (and removed progressive leaders in Chile, Guatemala, and Iran). We owe a lot to the world, and now is not the time to look inward, but help our brothers and sisters. We did it in Europe after WWII, we can continue this spirit.
A final word on the "free" versus "fair" trade debate I suspect some will point out. Free trade agreements since NAFTA have incorporated labor and environmental standards within the agreements. NAFTA had the side agreements to protect the two areas, unfortunately, Mexican cronyism did little to enact polluting in the northeast. But, once again, do remember that labor and environmental standards have been the way they are in these countries we do business with, so rejecting an agreement does not stop these actions from taking place-they'll just continue to do so. So if anything, at least these agreements have these measures. Once we can pass an FTA, then we can press the countries to do a better job with protecting the environment and cracking down on union busting. I suspect Bush won't follow through on this, which is why we need a Democrat in the White House.
Please do not let the Republicans get the upper hand on this. Sometimes I think that on free trade issues, if the two parties held their ground on the issues they cared most deeply about, the Democrats would support free trade, and the Republicans would not (protecting our people at the expense of others, when we can, in fact, promote both). I know a lot of Democrats who simply oppose this, consciously or not, because Bush supports it. I agree, it is hard to give the man a pass after he has done so much to wreck our country. But let's not impede the dreams of a country of 40+ million just because of this. Let's show the country (and the world) that Democrats lead when it comes to the world, not only foreign polcy-wise, human rights wise, but also economic-wise.
P.S. Don't anybody accuse me of being Joe Lieberman. I strongly back Obama (or Clinton) against McCain. I oppose this war just as much as you do and want our troops home now. I'm 100% liberal on social policy, and think taxes on the rich are too low. But I think progressive means looking forward, not backward (protectionism).
UPDATE: A lot has been made about Colombia's government under Alvaro Uribe. It is true, Uribe has had some historical links with right-wing paramilitaries. But we would promote the trade agreement to help the Colombian people, not to help Uribe. I can careless about Uribe. Plus, the paramilitary problem has been subsiding, as kidnappings, homicides have all been declining. But I respect those of you who have an issue with free trade with a country whose government you disagree with. But please see the merits of free trade!!!!!!!