Pass The Colombian Free Trade Pact . . . . Next Year

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The NYTimes argues for passage of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. I agree with that position. But I disagree with passing it now. The Times writes:

We don’t say it all that often, but President Bush is right: Congress should pass the Colombian free-trade agreement now.

The Times is right on the merits but wrong on the timing. Why? Because we just held a national election where the issue of trade was prominent. I imagine the rush to pass it now is because it is not likely to pass with the new Congress and the new President. If that is so, so be it. Elections have consequences. Unlike the economic crisis or the auto bailout, where immediate action is paramount, passage of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement does not require immediate action.

When George Bush won the election in 2004, the continuation of his disastrous Iraq Debacle is what the people voted for. Even though we did not like it. When the Democrats won the 2006 election, the Iraq Debacle should have been ended. Because that is what the people voted for (that it did not is the fault of the cowardly Dem Congress.) Democracy must be respected, whether we like the results or not.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Bill Clinton: I'll Do What It Takes For Hillary As SOS | The End Of The State Drama Near? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pass The Colombian Free Trade Pact . . . . Next Year | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You mean you don't want Sirota's head (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:33:36 AM EST

to explode at least once more this year?

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:36:31 AM EST

But no, but the people have spoken and we should respect what their votes did.

Whether we like it or not.


The spirit of Smoot and Hawley (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST

and during a recession. . .

Sigh.


At these times... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:06:16 AM EST

...i'd love to know what exactly is in the stock portfolio of the editorial board. Delmonte? Dole? concentrate coffee grounds? did the Duke brothers take over the Saltzbergers?


Please (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:17:17 AM EST

Let's not hyperventilate by equating the potential failure to prioritize a Colombian free-trade agreement with Smoot-Hawley. You're violating some sort of economic Godwin's Law here.

There is no left on trade in this country, only right and center. Maybe we need an actual protectionist movement just so people stop freaking out about the most minimalist attempts to put conditions on trade.


I'm not inclined to be nice (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:20:53 AM EST

about the kind of demagoguery that has conned lots of American workers into believing that if we tax American goods destined for Colombia (and that's the only real outcome of not passing this trade deal), we'll somehow save domestic manufacturing.


How about (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:30:24 AM EST

enforceable labor and environmental standards as part of the deal?

As Sherrod Brown says, if these were really free-trade agreements, they would be a few lines long. "Free trade" is simply the label that gets stuck on a set of corporate subsidies and giveaways, and if you oppose "free trade," well then you hate puppies and kittens and freedom. Before you get all sanctimonious on the subject, give some consideration to the possibility that you may not have all the answers.


Suppose Colombia doesn't comply? (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:35:06 AM EST

I think history shows us that tariffs are ineffective at changing the internal policies of foreign governments.

How well is that Cuba embargo going? The 90s blockade of Iraq, that was a real success, wasn't it?


What tariffs? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM EST

I am talking about negotiated, enforceable labor and environmental standards.

There are plenty of countries out there that are willing to treat their workers decently in exchange for the benefits of trading with the United States.

I think the version of "free trade" you favor actually has very little to do with the reality of these agreements. But please continue cheerleading, like Tom Friedman, for anything they slap the "free trade" label on, and insisting that any alternative is necessarily the equivalent to Smoot-Hawley. The rhetoric is not persuasive, but it's a "free" country.


bleh (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM EST

The opposite of free trade is protectionism. So protectionism is the issue, and the labor and environmental standards are frankly red herrings.

Gore and Clinton had it right in the 90s.


They had it right for Walmart... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by kdog on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:03:22 PM EST

but not for Rubbermade.


There you go again (none / 0) (#30)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:58:24 PM EST

Keep it up with the slogans. Very persuasive.


Oh seriously Steve (none / 0) (#41)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:21:30 PM EST

You haven't answered my question: what's the end game if other countries don't meet these never-explicit labor and environmental standards?

If it's a tax on their goods, well, how does that advance the goal of improved labor standards?


The end game (none / 0) (#44)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:40:41 PM EST

is that they lose their bargained-for benefits under the agreement. They shouldn't be promising to meet labor and environmental standards if they're not going to live up to those promises.

Again, you have to make up your mind if you're arguing for free trade as an economic principle, or if you're arguing for "free trade" as it exists in the real world, which means hundreds of pages of subsidies and regulations that we slap the "free trade" label on so people like you and Tom Friedman will feel compelled to support it.

I hope you come to realize that there is a fair-trade argument that is something more defensible than just know-nothing protectionism. Talking with you about this feels exactly like talking with the sort of liberal who just knew that all serious people support the Iraq war.


Here's where I'm coming from (none / 0) (#46)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:31:52 PM EST

Free Trade is good for everyone in the aggregate, with the caveat that there are obviously winners and losers (that there are losers is, I think, the real reason why most people who oppose free trade actually do).
Higher labor and environmental standards are good everywhere.

3.Tariffs (or the lack of free trade, if you like) can not improve environmental and labor standards in other countries.

So, if we say, "we won't trade with you unless you commit to these standards," we're really hurting ourselves (subject to the caveats in point 1). In addition, there's a good chance that we're actually hurting the cause of improving environmental and labor standards in the third world. (If they can't develop, they'll never have the money to make the improvements).

Unless you can somehow refute point three, the default position ought to be free trade.


my understanding is that ... (none / 0) (#20)
by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:40:00 AM EST

...this allows the US to export stuff there more cheaply and has very little to do with changing existing US trade law. So in the end it will prolly hurt the peasants and factory workers in Columbia to some extent. Which is odd--liberal concern for the disadvantaged voiceless worker stops at the border apparently. (and that concern is mute at home too)


Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM EST

Over 90 percent of U.S. imports from Colombia now enter our country duty-free, but U.S. exports to Colombia face tariffs up to 35 percent.
Once implemented, the agreement will eliminate tariffs on more than 80 percent of American exports of industrial and consumer goods immediately and 100 percent over time.
This agreement will provide U.S. companies and farmers that export to Colombia with duty-free access to this large and growing market.
The agreement will also make permanent Colombia's preferential access to the U.S. market.

The last bit sounds like the main reason why Columbia is interested in this agreement.


Duty-free deal was temporary (none / 0) (#32)
by joanneleon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST

The bill being pushed by Bush would make permanent the temporary trade breaks Colombia has enjoyed since 1991 under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act in exchange for cooperation in drug-fighting efforts.

Just noting that the duty-free imports from Columbia was part of a temporary trade deal to help them build an economy not dominated by cocaine production.


: Thanks, good info. (none / 0) (#37)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:10:27 PM EST

The principle behind protectionism (none / 0) (#22)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:47:49 AM EST

is to attempt to protect domestic industry first.

The fretting about labor and environmental agreements is to get American bleeding hearts to not ask questions about the first principle.


Like (none / 0) (#28)
by cal1942 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST

protective tariffs in the 19th century that helped foster the growth of American industry.

The word protection has been demonized as badly as the word liberal.


I guess that makes sense (none / 0) (#29)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:42:02 PM EST

if you think we have "infant industries" that need special protection for some reason. But I don't think, generally speaking, that the government ought to be in the business of picking winners and losers. There are exceptions where it might sometimes make sense, but they are rare.


: we're (none / 0) (#31)
by cal1942 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST

going to end up with no industries if trends continue.
We were once the biggest exporter of machine tools now we are a net importer. US machine tool manufacturers innovate only to be copied by foreign makers and innovation is hampered as the industry shrinks. Abroad there is a great deal of nationalism involved regarding machine tools.
That's only one example.
We're being taken to the cleaners.

Is there something wrong with (none / 0) (#33)
by joanneleon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:25:42 PM EST

using some protectionism when it makes sense? You make it sound like it's an all or nothing proposition. Different situations call for different tactics. This isn't a black and white world.


: It makes sense only in a very limited (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:23:11 PM EST

set of circumstances. Usually when other countries are subsidizing their own industries to a very large extent.

surely you mean taxing ... (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:28:03 AM EST

...columbian imports into the US? Correct?


Amazingly, no (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST

Most Colombian imports already enter the US tax free, apparently.


I heard about that... (none / 0) (#18)
by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:36:34 AM EST

...so it seems like an odd deal. Essentially the Columbians are making trade concessions for some unfathomable reason, with little shown in return for the generosity.


: It works out for them either way (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:39:32 AM EST

and we're stuck cutting off our nose.

: Their duty-free deal was temporary (none / 0) (#34)
by joanneleon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM EST

and was really more of an aid program.

Free trade with Colombia is high on Bush's agenda
...
The bill being pushed by Bush would make permanent the temporary trade breaks Colombia has enjoyed since 1991 under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act in exchange for cooperation in drug-fighting efforts. That relationship has intensified in recent years under Plan Colombia, the U.S. anti-drug and anti-terrorism program that has channeled $5.5 billion in mostly military aid since 2000.
Colombia's trade breaks have helped boost its U.S. exports to $9 billion annually, including oil, coal, coffee and bananas, most of which enter duty-free. U.S. exports to Colombia total about $6 billion. Ecuador and Peru also receive the breaks, but Bolivia was excluded last month after leftist President Evo Morales kicked out the U.S. ambassador.
Plan Colombia has enabled Uribe to beef up his military, seizing the initiative from leftist rebel groups and improving security.
But the U.S. economic crisis, paired with Plan Colombia's mixed results in curbing cocaine production, has led to speculation that the aid program, which this year included $200 million in economic projects, may be downscaled sooner than envisioned by its supporters.
LA Times Story Link

Also, Colombia faces competition when the new trade deals with Peru, et al, go into effect. So they want to make it permanent.
At least that's how I understand the situation.

Can we at least pretend... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by kdog on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:33:48 AM EST

to try and win some human and labor rights consessions from Colombia first?

Ya know...just for show:)

: we are too busy... (none / 0) (#8)
by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:02:09 AM EST

...bombing peasant coke growing villages and napalming their pot fields for that.
workers rights? To be annihilated and starved off their land?

Now? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM EST

With the old Congress? Like during the lame-duck session? Yeah, that'll show the American people who has their priorities in order (hint: it's not the New York Times).

Any agreement that ships jobs... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Dadler on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:16:27 AM EST

...overseas is going to be DOA for quite some time. I don't think the American people are keen on ANYTHING right now but employing Americans as fully as possible. And, as Kdog, mentioned, if we don't at least get some serious labor concessions then it's more of the same nonsense that has us where we are as a nation that produces nothing and consumes everything.

Let's apply this logic to the U.S. (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST

lame duck executive branch and Iraq contracting to continued U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Let's apply it to everything (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:39:39 AM EST

no in crisis mode.


seamless transitions and all that. (none / 0) (#9)
by Salo on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:03:04 AM EST

what did you expect?


: I hoped for, but didn't (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM EST

really expect, the Dems. in Congress and the President-elect to say: wait a minute, here. Don't commit the new administration and Congress.

Ummm (none / 0) (#27)
by jarober on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:09:13 PM EST

We elect representatives to act in what they perceive to be our best interests. If all we wanted was rubber stamps, we could just take polls and become Athens.

Yeah, there's a plan...

Yeah, the timing is incredible (none / 0) (#35)
by joanneleon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM EST

Now I realize that I'm way off course in my thinking when compared to a lot of people in the prog. blogosphere, but here's what I'd like my Congress to do right now:

Obstruct Bush-driven legislation
Help out some average Americans going down the tubes
Oversight, oversight, oversight - watch what they're doing on the way out and get a handle on the GD TARP money flying out of the Treasury windows.

Sincere plea for help in understanding trade deals (none / 0) (#36)
by BobTinKY on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:57:22 PM EST

Help me understand these deals.

I don't see how "evening the playing" field with countries, free trade as it is called, furthers US goals of protecting the environment, establshing fair and human labor markets, and furthering humasn rights. These deals assume the country the US is dealing with incurs the same costs the US does in protecting the environment and providing minimal labor standards etc. And that is fine with Canada and Western Europe.

But the rest the world, places where there are little if any environmental regulations, little if any concern over human rights much less labor rights? How do you have free trade with countries like that and keep your own capitalists from taking their capital to these places to avoid costs that US citizens have determined should be internalized, and in so doing gutting important US policies?

It seems to me the merits require not only not approving the Columbia deal but revisting all these deals and implementing tariffs in order to avoid having US policy objectives, enacted through democratic means, circumvented by the movement of capital away from the US to these third world countries. When the resulting foreign produced imports are allowed back in the US freely the now foreign producer has successfully evaded the costs that US citizens have deemed should be internalized to the producer and consumers of its product.

If Shakespeare were alive today I have to believe he'd be writing "kill the economists." These deals make no sense. If tariffs were to be imposed upon products from countries that did not protect the environment and human rights then 1) these progressive US policies would be protected and more effective and 2) these other countries would be incentivized to adopt similar policies making the entire world better off.

Yes...........NEXT YEAR! (none / 0) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:49:43 PM EST

Not now, not this year......we have other things that MUST BE done and need our full attention. As for respecting the democracy, I have done that - and then I had to learn how to respect the republic of that democracy and I reluctantly went there too. According to Dr. Phil AND Oprah both, I must always have self respect though and having all three of those things happen on the same day just hasn't happened in a really really long time. I'm going to have to respect what I can today and take it one day at a time.

I favor the agreement. (none / 0) (#39)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST

but waiting until February is not an issue.


: Do you feel it provides needed (none / 0) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:14:06 PM EST

protection for Columbian workers making goods we import? I don't know anything about it yet other than its attempted forcing through. If it doesn't I can't say I'm interested or for it. I'm sick of giving sweatshops and child labor a reason for being, I'm just flat sick of it. There isn't anything I need that badly. There must be a better way to go about things.

the Colombian workers and wage system (none / 0) (#43)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:06:13 PM EST

wouldn't change under this agreement, but the system is so different from ours that the 'reforms' many call for, perhaps not on this site, are unrealistic.

This is my wife's country, and I'll be there, again, this Christmas. I won't make a long post here, but I should write an essay and send it to BTD... I'm doing research about Colombia at this time.

the benefits would be for the US... Bush didn't lie when he talked about the tariffs Colombia places on US goods. Are there other issues? doubtless. But Colombia is making progress. I am biased, but there's tremendous progres since the AUC ( paralilitary right wing group, responsible for assassinating union organizers) has been neutered.

so... don't want to write more, I'll send an essay to BTD, let him pick and choose, decide i'm an idiot or I know what I'm talking about...

too much time on the ground there to accept the campaign statements at face value.

: Where in Columbia? (none / 0) (#45)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:11:09 PM EST