- Colombian president Álvaro Uribe, a U.S. ally in an area of the world moving precariously to the left, deserves recompense for his allegiance to America as well as his efforts to curb both the drug trade and the violence against union leaders
- Countries rich in natural resources remain relatively stable during periods of economic turbulence
- Despite the ongoing degradation of the U.S. financial markets, supply-side theory remains the best policy for economic development in both developed and developing nations
Until this year, #1 had become difficult to argue against. Although he has only sparred with Hugo Chávez and his compatriates on rare occasion, Uribe has stood firm against the Marxist-Leninist governments and ideologies that pepper the continent. Since assuming the presidency in 2002, Uribe has brought a modicum of order to a country besieged by guerrilla warfare, paralyzed by ineffective public institutions, and degraded by decades of the illegal drug trade. In 2008, however, Uribe's country has slipped from his grasp as the rate of union leader murders is rising and his own military has engaged in egregious violations of human rights in order to inflate its success rates against FARC and ELN rebels. Such actions are even more tragic because Colombia's military only functions as a result of direct aid from the U.S.. Furthermore, while the opium/heroin trade has declined this decade, coca cultivation has increased 15% from 2000-2006, and cocaine production has risen by 4%.
#2 is a risky belief to hold, particularly during these uncertain times. U.S.-based multinational companies are eager to transfer some operations to a country so abundant in both natural resources and cheap labor. Even in more stable economic environments, such relocations are fraught with calamity (Nigeria comes to mind). With some commodity prices in freefall while others spike, will the "resource curse" lead to the collapse of Colombia's economy and/or government?
Despite so much evidence to the contrary, Bush still believes in the fundamentals of trickle-down economics. How else can he support a free trade policy that may cost American jobs, but will certainly increase the bottom line for American companies? How else can he believe free trade will improve the living standards of Colombia's working class unless he trusts the country's wealthy elite to better working conditions for the masses? #3 is the panacea argument for CoFTA: if Uribe no longer "deserves" CoFTA, he "needs" it in order to keep Colombia from spiraling out of control. If Colombia is rocked by political instability and civil unrest in the face of fluctuating commodity prices, CoFTA is essential in order to restructure corporate activity and the workforce. In the end, Bush's support for CoFTA is not rooted in his intent to line the pockets of the corporate elite, but it is a consequence of his continuing adherence to Reaganomics.
This is not to say I am against free trade with Colombia. I hold fast to the ideals of fair trade, but recognize that the implications of price distortion are serious and far-reaching. I am also aware that agribusiness will be instrumental not just in the survival of the global economy, but in the survival of our species. Unfortunately, the CoFTA legislation as it is currently penned is far too dangerous for me to support. Without the appropriate safeguards in place, the inevitable "race to the bottom" among corporate interests in Colombia will go unchecked. Excessive monocropping and a dearth of environmental and quality-control standards will threaten Colombia's long-term agricultural opportunities, devastate the ecology of the upper Amazon basin, and endanger the health of the American public. Although recent amendments to CoFTA have made some inroads on these fronts, foreign investor rights provisions in the legislation prevent the U.S. from forcing multi-national corporations to adhere to minimum standards of agricultural preservation and product safety in Colombia. These provisions also prevent the U.S. from requiring many minimum standards for Colombian workers.
Foreign investor rights are the main reason I oppose NAFTA and CAFTA. U.S. taxpayers have been forced to pay millions of dollars to multi-national corporations who have sued the U.S. successfully in order to lift bans on toxic substances, farming methods, and labor requirements. CoFTA is even more alarming, since it extends these foreign investor rights to oil, logging, and mining interests. If CoFTA is enacted in its current form, the financial windfall for these stakeholders will likely be massive. While the standard of living for the poorest Colombians may improve slightly under CoFTA (absent short-term political and social upheaval), the distribution of wealth in the country will become even more pronounced at the expense of long-term stability and success. It is imperative that any free trade agreement with Colombia (i) benefit all of the country's citizens sufficiently to provide opportunities for social and financial advancement; (ii) protect Colombia's environment; and (iii) ensure the safety of Colombia's exports.
3 comments:
Hrm, you've made me re-consider my former unconditional support for free trade Pan-American. How thoughtful.
Mostly though, I was just pleasantly surprised to read the whole entry without even a single mention of a Wrap-n-Poke,
A very interesting post, however, I think you glossed over some of the
reasons we support Mr. Uribe in your first point. Keep in mind that he
has presided over an economy that up until the recent financial turmoil
was growing at a very respectable 7%. During his 6 years as president
murders have fallen from close to 30,000 per year to around 17,000,
kidnappings have fallen from close to 3,000 a year to around 500 and his
personal approval rating as of June was an astronomical 91.47%.
Furthermore, the FARC, who had been terrorizing the countryside unchecked
(at his inauguration they launched rockets aimed at the palace killing 19
people and wounding 60) has been beaten back to the farthest, most remote
regions of the jungle. Desertions from the communist rebel group have
been accelerating leading some to think the group may be going through its
final death throes. He has also enacted a host of market orientated
reforms (which is a rare achievement in modern Latin America) and made
some small strides in reigning in corruption (though there is still a long
way to go). When you compare those achievements to what has been going on
in Peru and Panama over the past 6 years (or compare the directions the 3
countries seem to be heading in) it is hard to see why they deserve to
have their free trade agreements move forward while Colombia's is put on
hold.
Marc,
I don't dismiss Uribe's accomplishments in Colombia. He has significantly marginalized terrorist forces and brought much-needed change to the country. Your point regarding the growing Colombia economy, however, is exactly why Uribe's achievements need to come under closer scrutiny. It's easy to keep FARC at bay when farmers and other workers are doing better in a strong economic environment -- rebel groups are far less appealing. When the market falls, however, FARC becomes a much more tempting option. The inverse correlation between violence and the economy in Colombia since late 2007 is undeniable. Uribe will prove himself if he's able to maintain some semblance of order despite the financial crisis.
Peru's trade agreement is also absurd, and was borne out of the same misguided legislation (the Andean Trade Preference Act). I think the reason Peru doesn't receive the same amount of attention is that Peru had a jump start on the reduction of violence and corruption following the resignation of Fujimori in 2000. While child labor is still problematic, I think there have been enough improvements to keep many critics subdued.
I oppose the pending Panama bilateral trade agreement as well, since I see it as no more than an offshoot of CAFTA. Given the election of Pedro Gonzalez, I don't think the agreement will be ratified anytime soon.
Post a Comment