Shortcuts

Subscribe.
[Feeds & Readers]

Make us your home page!
Authors, sign in!

« More Middle Class Families Experiencing Hunger and Fear | Main | Race in America, Part 2 »


Colombia Trade Deal Is Derailed. Let's Keep It Off the Tracks

By Tula Connell
April 18, 2008

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).

(I first posted this at Tom Paine.)


Comments (1)

Tula,

Fantastic post and welcome to Everyday Citizen! We are going to learn a lot from you. It's truly an honor.

For the readers of your post that might not understand "Fast Track" and how it works, I'm pasting just some FYI information below. Basically "Fast Track" is an expeditious way of allowing the President to consult with Congress and "make trade deals."

However, the problem with President Bush is that he does not "consult with" Congress appropriately, and, as Tula pointed out above, Bush tries to ram his deals down our throats. Here's more info on Fast Track that I copies from various sources:

The Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to set tariffs and enact other legislation governing internation trade. The President has the Constitutional authority ONLY to negotiate international agreements but the ratification is up to Congress. Think of the President as the "salesman" and Congress as the "boss." If the President tries to sell something the boss doesn't want to sell, the deal is off.

If the President negotiates a trade agreement that requires changes in U.S. tariffs or in other domestic laws, that trade agreement's implementing legislation must be submitted to Congress -- or the President must have Congress' advance approval of such changes.

The success of fast track is two fold:

1) The agreement the President seeks must satisfy the Congress that the people of the U.S. are best served by the new agreement. If not, Congress can revoke the fast track.

2) The President must be forthcoming and adequately consult and inform Congress of the ways in which the new agreement will be implemented by the Executive branch and, then, again, Congress can revoke the fast track if Congress is not satisfied with the President's explanation or any other aspect of the agreement that will affect citizens.

Prior to George Bush, requests for fast track have always included extensive notification and consultation requirements for the President with Congress and with private sector advisory committees.

In every trade agreement negotiated under fast track, Congress is supposed to be an active participant in identifying negotiating objectives, monitoring the actual negotiations, and drafting implementation legislation. It has not been so under President Bush.

The consultation with Congress is critical because it allows us, the American people, to communicate with our legislators regarding ways in which the new trade agreement might hurt or help us - the citizens.

To apply fast track to a trade agreement, whether sectoral, bilateral or multilateral, the President must notify Congress in advance of his intention to sign such an agreement.

For bilateral trade agreements, the Congress must be given advance notice of the President's intent to begin negotiations. During the next 60 legislative days, either the House Ways and Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee can vote to deny fast track for the proposed agreement.

Once the negotiations have been concluded and the President has signed it, the Congress and the Administration begin a period of extensive discussions on drafting legislation. This process, reflecting the growing complexity of trade agreements, has involved an increasing number of committees of jurisdiction and interested Congressional members.

The President is required to spell out precisely how he intends to use his existing regulatory authority in implementing the agreement.

Congress retains the right to vote down an agreement if, after consultation, it still finds the package unacceptable.

Congressional prerogatives include special procedures for revoking fast track if the President fails to meet the consultation requirements.

Tula, great post!!!

Lola Wheeler

Post a comment

Want to browse more blogs? Try our table of contents to find articles under specific topics or headings. Or you might find interesting entries by looking through the complete archives too. Stay around awhile. We're glad you're here.


Browse the Blogs!

You are here!

This page contains only one entry posted to Everyday Citizen on April 18, 2008 9:59 AM.

The blog post previous to it is titled "More Middle Class Families Experiencing Hunger and Fear"

The post that follows this one is titled "Race in America, Part 2"

Want to explore this site more?

Many more blog posts can be found on our Front Page or within our complete Archives.

Does a particular subject interest you?

You can easily search for blog posts under a specific topic by using our List of Categories.

Democratic National Convention!

Everyday Citizen was selected by the DNC as one of just 55 blogs nationwide to be seated with delegates on the floor, and embedded with delegates during the weeklong 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver!

Read some of our coverage in the mainstream press here >>

Watch a Convention video featuring our bloggers here >>

Find out which Everyday Citizen writers went to Denver here >>

Browse the list of all of our Convention blog posts here >>

Notices & Policies

All of the Everyday Citizen authors are delighted you are here. We all hope that you come back often, leave us comments, and become an active part of our community. Welcome!

All of our contributing authors are credentialed by invitation only from the editor/publisher of EverydayCitizen.com. If you are visiting and are interested in writing here, please feel free to let us know.

For complete site policies, including privacy, see our Frequently Asked Questions. This site is designed, maintained, and owned by its publisher, Everyday Citizen Media. EverydayCitizen.com, The Everyday Citizen, everydaycitizens.com, and Everyday Citizen are trademarked names.

Each of the authors here retain their own copyrights for their written works. Our authors also welcome and encourage readers to copy, reference or quote from the content of their blog postings, provided that the content reprints include obvious author or website attribution and/or links to their original postings, in accordance with this website's Creative Commons License.

Copyright, 2007-2008, All rights reserved, unless otherwise specified, first by each the respective authors of each of their own individual blogs, and then by the editor and publisher for any otherwise unreserved and all other content. Our editor primarily reviews blogs for spelling, grammar, punctuation and formatting and is not liable or responsible for the opinions expressed by individual authors. The opinions and accuracy of information in the individual blog posts on this site are the sole responsibility of each of the individual authors.