Nicholas Kristof’s column in the New York Times today, “Better Roses than Cocaine,” says it all. There is no good reason for the US Congress to continue to hold up the free trade agreement that the Administration has negotiated with Colombia.
Free trade with Colombia can’t have anything to do with loss of US jobs: Colombia’s exports already enter the US duty-free. Rather, the Free Trade Agreement would reduce remaining Colombian barriers to imports from the US. It could contribute (a bit) to a surge in US exports worldwide, which in turn could once again become the engine of US growth that it was in the 1990s.
Nor would free trade with Colombia be bad for human rights in that violent country. No government is perfect. But the Uribe government offers the best hope of bringing some measure of peace, prosperity and justice to Colombia. It is fighting against the guerillas and drugs. It wants to give farmers some security, for example, so that they know they have an assured US export market in cut flowers to replace the risky business of growing coca for cocaine. It deserves our support.
American labor unions raise the issue of killings of Colombian union leaders. But this is a weak reason to oppose the FTA. For one thing, the odds of being killed if you are a union leader in Colombia are now less than the odds of being killed if you are a regular citizen.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the main reason Congressmen are opposing the Colombian free trade agreement is to pander to ill-informed American public opinon. (Of course the White House would have been better-advised to concentrate its energies and political capital on the multilateral level, the WTO, rather than on the negotiation of myriad bilateral FTAs with small countries. But this is an argument of economists and policy wonks. No politicians are opposing the Colombian agreement on these grounds.)
Kristof concludes with a challenge to Democrats. “Democrats instinctively criticize Bush when he harms America’s standing in the world.” I assume he has in mind Kyoto, Guantanamo, Abu Graib, land mines treaty, International Criminal Court, nuclear weapons policy, energy policy, steel tariffs, and other economic missteps I could list (see The International Economy). He continues, “But a test of intellectual honesty is your willingness to hold your own side to the same standard and to point out pandering in those politicians you normally admire.”
He is right. Hillary and Barack: if you are listening, SUPPORT THE COLOMBIAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT! Everybody else: read Kristof.
The only thing bogus that I see is your feeble attempt to brush off the murder of trade unionists. Colombia is a violent place, no doubt, but the slaughter of unionists is a serious concern and one that can be properly addressed in a trade pact such as this. It’s not simply the slaughter of trade unionists that is at issue, it’s the seeming endorsement of this slaughter by the Uribe government as evidenced by the lack of arrests and prosecutions in these cases. Indeed since 2002 far less than 10% of all trade unionist murders have resulted in a trial.
You seem very Polly-Annish about President Uribe. Are you aware that his cousin and close adviser was arrested earlier this week after being tied to far-right paramilitary groups? How about the recent accusations of bribery? How about his alleged involvement in a 1997 massacre by paramilitaries? These are just stories from THIS WEEK.
Yes, yes roses are better than cocaine but that is a myopic view of what is really at issue. Should the United States be granting trade privileges to a corrupt, oppressive and (allegedly) murderous far-right regime?
This is a deeply corrupt administration with decidedly non-democratic tendencies and we shouldn’t be showering them with a free trade agreement and not extracting serious concessions.
I’m shocked to see such a shallow and glib analysis from someone whose opinion I normally deeply respect.
I am sorry if I sounded cavalier about any murders, even one. Of course blog posts need to be short, and the medium encourages a certain cavalierness. But the relevant questions are: (1) whether one honestly believes that a president better able to bring peace, prosperity and justice to Colombia than Uribe is likely to come along (yes, I have seen the reports about his cousin; and yes, I know about the paramilitaries, who are not fundamentally different from the guerillas and the druglords), and (2) whether one honestly believes that congressional rejection of the FTA will make things better. I think it will make things worse.
I don’t think the question is, will rejection make things better. I believe the question is, should the United States be in the business of rewarding such a government with a trade agreement? To me the answer is a definitive no.
Approving the deal will certainly not make things better.
Rejecting the deal at least gives us leverage to pressure the Uribe government.
Thank you for your response. I really do appreciate it. I’m a regular reader and truly enjoy your writing and appreciate the access to you and your thoughts. On 95% of issues we are fellow travelers.
[...] Support the Free Trade Agreement with ColombiaFree trade with Colombia can’t have anything to do with loss of US jobs: Colombia’s exports already enter US duty-free. The Free Trade Area would reduce remaining Colombian barriers to imports from the US. It would contribute to a surge … [...]
“Colombia’s exports already enter the US duty-free. Rather, the Free Trade Agreement would reduce remaining Colombian barriers to imports from the US.”
I wonder, what Columbia has to gain from this agreements if it does not provide any new trade preferences for its exports? If that’s just about reducing barriers to US exports, no need for a bilateral agreement, no?
Response to Wince:
Good question. I think one thing that Colombia is looking for is security that its trade preferences won’t be removed in the future, which is always a risk. Under the current system this risk could inhibit, for example, some farmer’s long-run decision to move into the flower sector (and maybe out of the coca sector). But even an economist has to admit that ultimately, for both the supporters and opponents of the FTA, the overriding question is whether the US should be sending a signal of support to Colombia’s government or a signal of opposition.
[...] Colombian free trade agreement is to pander to ill-informed American public opinon. ” –Jeff Frankel, professor of economics at Harvard University Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social [...]
[...] Obama is on a vist to the Middle East and Europe. Senator McCain went to visit Colombia earlier in July. These trips show a seriousness of purpose that American presidential [...]