As reported by both Postman and the PI’s Politics Team, Congressman Dave Reichert is challenging his Democratic colleagues in the state to join him in opposing House Speaker Pelosi’s attempts to prevent a vote on the Colombian free trade agreement this year. Reichert was one of 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats who traveled to Colombia with US Trade Representative Susan Schwab this past weekend. Here’s what he sent out:
Many times when Republicans were in the majority, my colleagues would call on me to go to my leadership to help the state, for instance when we learned of language that would allow supertankers onto Puget Sound. Today, I urge all of my colleagues in the Washington delegation – including Governor Gregoire – to join together and reject the Speaker’s effort to shelve this vital measure.
Reichert’s premise is that this trade agreement specifically helps the state of Washington because of how dependent we are on global trade. But this appears to be a questionable premise at best. Boston University International Relations Professor Kevin P. Gallagher, who has written a book on NAFTA, takes a look at this agreement:
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade deal is one of the most deeply flawed trade pacts in U.S. history. It will hardly make a dent in the U.S. economy, looks to make the Colombian economy worse off and accentuate a labor and environmental crisis in Colombia. The Democratic majority in Congress is right to oppose this agreement and call for a rethinking of U.S. trade policy.
According to new estimates by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, the net benefits of the agreement to the U.S. will be a miniscule 0.0000472 percent of GDP or a one-time increase in the level of each American’s income by just over one penny. The agreement will actually will make Colombia worse off by up to $75 million or one tenth of one percent of its GDP; losses to Colombia’s textiles, apparel, food and heavy manufacturing industries, as they face new competition from U.S. import, will outweigh the gains in Colombian petroleum, mining, and other export sectors, it concludes.
There’s a lot more that could be added to this that Gallagher doesn’t mention. Anything that weakens the Colombian economy to this extent will end up with more migrants in search of work and an increase the number of people willing to participate in illegal coca production. The failures of NAFTA in Mexico are likely to be repeated in Colombia, as both nations remain mired at the sharp end of America’s failed drug war, a no-win situation that no trade agreement will ever rectify and will continue to end up with more people fleeing here to find work.
But he does delve into another problem with this agreement, one that many people here in Washington State are likely to find troubling:
The deal amounts to a rollback of previous environmental provisions in U.S. trade agreements. Unlike past U.S. trade pacts, this deal doesn’t provide any new funding for cooperation, clean up, or compliance.
Finally, the deal has a little secret also not allowed under the WTO. It leaves open the possibility that ad hoc investment tribunals will interpret social and environmental regulations as “indirect expropriation.” Under such interpretations, multinational firms themselves (as opposed to states filing on a firm’s behalf such as in the WTO) can file suit for massive compensation from foreign governments. Under NAFTA such suits have been filed against the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Indeed, Methanex Corp. filed a $1 billion suit against the state of California for banning a gasoline additive that was polluting water sources.
The Sierra Club has a page here on the Methanex suit and others that have been initiated within the NAFTA agreement. As Congressman Reichert continues to make efforts to demonstrate his “green” credentials, I’m curious whether he has concerns over whether environmental regulations that come out of Olympia could trigger lawsuits from corporations that are affected by them.
Finally, Reichert spokesman Mike Shields has some words defending our desired trading partner, Colombia:
Is it perfect? No. But it has made improvements and it is our friend and ally in that part of the world, particularly when they have a neighbor who is fashioning himself to be a Fidel Castro for that part of the world.
This is true. Chavez is most certainly fashioning himself as a Castro-like anti-American protagonist, but this gets back to what my main concern over this agreement is. The policies of the Bush Administration, both economic and military, are slowly isolating our Colombian ally while strengthening the hand of Hugo Chavez. And this trade agreement will likely move us further down that path as long as President Bush sees it as a reward for a government whose recent military encroachment on Ecuadorean soil earned widespread condemnation across the region.
UPDATE: Reichert has a column on this in today’s Seattle Times.
Plus Washington State is primarily a Pacific Rim trader, not a South American one.
And plus, Reichert sucks.
Lee: In the last graf you say your main opposition to the agreement stems from the fact that it will isolate Colombia in South America. I’m not so sure. One, Colombia wants the agreement . Colombia clearly has more to lose from its being isolated in South America than we do from Colombia being so isolated. If it’s not worried about being isolated from its neighbors, it’s paternalistic bad politics for us to explicitly oppose a trade agreement on those grounds (although I could see a convoluted Kissinger-esque real politik argument for public opposition on those unstated grounds).
With respect to Colombia-Venezuela rapproachment, this agreement isn’t going to affect the longstanding political rivalry. Venezuela has already pulled out/unilaterally renegotiated of its trade agreements with Colombia–vastly limiting the ability of Colombian business to export to Venezuela.
Within South America, Venezuela’s suasion lies more with Ecuador and Bolivia, two marginal economies. And looking at Correa’s relatively quick backpedaling in the recent border dispute, Chavez’s pull isn’t especially compelling.
Foreign policy real politik arguments with respect to Colombia and US relations should take into account our influence relative to France’s influence. Sarkozy has made a Colombia-FARC peace acccord central to his foreign policy goals. With the Latin America elite in general culturally sympathetic to Europe, the US risks losing some of its influence to folks a continent away.
All food for thought in an incredibly complicated, interesting issue.
Dang librals.
It all sounds like a ding libral plot t’me. I think we should ask Preznit Bush to help everybody do the fine Christian thing on this one.
Jim, a genuine musician who does not, has not, and will not ever try to operate a bagpipe assembly.
@3
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. The one point I’ll make in response is that while Colombia does want the agreement, the agreement will have to work to benefit all Colombians, or else they will end up with the opposite result from what they hope for. This is what has happened in Mexico as the NAFTA agreement hasn’t been the boon for the lower classes that many predicted, or even expected, it to be. It mainly enriched the upper strata of Mexican society while doing nothing to fix the entrenched problems of the underclass.
Where I tend to disagree with most left-leaning commentators is that I don’t believe that all free trade agreements will have this problem. I believe that the drug war is a much bigger part of that failure than is often acknowledged. But since Colombia and Mexico share this trait, I expect this agreement (and I’m willing to take Gallagher’s word for it that this one is particularly imbalanced already) to make South American nations even more wary to enter into agreements like this with us. And in the end, that strengthens Chavez (who is truly nuts) and makes it harder to arrive at future deals that could potentially be a boon for both parties.
“Chavez is most certainly fashioning himself as a Castro-like anti-American protagonist”
If I lived on a continent where foreign-controlled corporations charge people 25% of their annual income for basic telephone service, I probably wouldn’t enthusiastically embrace capitalism either.
@6
I agree. In a world where capitalism is seen as a threat to liberty, people like Chavez rise to the top. Global businesses do need to have a better perspective on that reality.
As for Chavez, he’s still nuts:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125936.html
However, I don’t live in South America, I live in America — and I do enthusiastically embrace capitalism!!! My stocks are up about $900 today, as of 20 minutes ago!!! I didn’t do a fucking thing to earn this money. Hell, I didn’t even get out of bed until 20 minutes ago!!! In addition, I pay only 1/3rd the tax rate that wage earners pay, and don’t have the commuting expenses or hassles. Given a confluence of wingnut policies adding up to Wingnut Economics — cheap labor, heavy taxation of wages, and policies favoring owners of capital — have led me to conclude that working is counterproductive and owning is the only way to go!!! Yes, it’s a great way to build a zero-sum economy of the sort that caused societal stagnation and internecine warfare in ancient China for 3,000 years; but so what, that’s a small price to pay for being able to make money and pay low taxes without getting out of bed or doing any work!!! I like this system just fine, so long as I don’t have to justify it or accept any moral responsibility for it, which I don’t because I didn’t choose these fucked-up values or priorities.
NAFTA was originally designed to lift the entire region economically by lowering barriers to trade. Arguably the efficiency which was created would offset local economic disruptions. A side benefit would be that an improved Mexican economy would be a deterrent to illegal immigration into the U.S.
It didn’t work, primarily because of two things. The first is that the Mexican agricultural system was prepared, technologically, to compete with American agriculture. Lots of Mexican farm workers lost their jobs due to the influx of cheaper American produce, and those workers flocked north in another wave of illegal immigration. Secondly, the expected flow of cheaply manufactured goods from Mexico to the U.S. never took off, because it was supplanted when China was given Most Favored Nation trading status. The Chinese were producing manufacatured goods at a fraction of the cost of the goods in Mexico, so a lot of the manufacturing complexes just south of the U.S. border closed down rather quickly as production of goods were outsourced once again to China.
Finally, I had to wonder about the reference to textiles being a factor. Since when do we manufacture textiles which we export to foreign countries? Textile manufacturing was one of the first industries pretty much displaced by foreign competition beginning in the 1980’s and accelerated considerably. If there is a single textile manufacturer still in the U.S., I’m not aware of it. Is this trade agreement expecting that we will import textiles from China or South Asia and then re-export them to Columbia? Is that where somebody thinks they can make a buck, by avoiding Columbian tariffs against Asian goods by putting a minor “finishing detail” on them here (the Nike swoosh?), and re-exporting them with a “made in the U.S.” label on them?
Erratum: The sentence should read: The first is that the Mexican agricultural system was un-prepared, technologically, to compete with American agriculture.
9 Just wondering…have they completely stopped growing cotton in the American southeast? If not, what are they doing, shipping the freshly ginned cotton overseas to be woven and sewed into stuff?
Also, there was a news item in the last day or so reporting that the rate of undocumented folks crossing the border from Mexico has shown a significant decline in recent months. While the politicians are crowing about how it’s all because of increased efforts at enforcement, it turns out that as our economy declines, there aren’t as many low-end jobs worth sneaking up here to chase after, so more and more Mexicans are choosing to take their chances close to home.
10 Mexican agriculture was also most likely unprepared politically, to compete with Archer Daniels Midland’s subsidized megafarms to supply the principal staple grain in the Mexican diet. Now, as ADM is collecting one subsidy on top of another to turn its corn into gas-tank bourbon, the result has been riots in Mexico over the sudden rise in the price of corn.
@11
Also, there was a news item in the last day or so reporting that the rate of undocumented folks crossing the border from Mexico has shown a significant decline in recent months.
How exactly is this even measured? I would be wary of anyone trying to say that they know precisely how many people are entering this country illegally at any given time, because the harder we crack down it, the more secretively it’s done.
@9
Rhp, thanks as always for sharing your thoughts.
I think Goldy is still playing with the code – the response block looks different, and there is no preview function available. I don’t know how this will eventually show up on the board.AftFart @ 11: Good question. I know cotton crops are a fraction of what they were in their ante-bellum heyday, in part due to the boll weevel. Cotton picking used to be very labor-intensive (my mother picked cotton on occassion when she grew up in rural Alabama). Lots of devices were used to keep low wages (share-cropping, etc.). But eventually they came up with a mechanical device for picking the cotton. In the meantime, ever since the Civil War, cotton was being produced in rather large quantities in India, as well as some in Egypt. The British textile mills developed those fields in order to find an alternative sources, due to the Union blockade of southern ports during the war. I suspect a lot of the cotton-based textiles in southern Asia are being made from cotton from those sources.But I’ll have to do some checking to see what we currently due with our cotton crops.
I can imagine how this whole issue started. Reichart gets dumped on in his attempts to get on the appropriations committee. He goes to a Republican consultant, who says he needs to highlight his accomplishments. “What have you done for two years?” “Well, I served on committees”. “Okay, good. What did you do in those committees?” “Well, you know, committee stuff”. “No, I mean, did you have something specific you can demonstrate to voters?” “Well, I was assigned to take minutes of the meetings sometimes -we could show the voters those notes”. “No, I don’t think so. Let’s approach this from another angle. What is important to the people in your district?” “Oh, that’s easy. The War. The environment. Jobs. Taxes. Tax Cuts. Everybody I talk to at Republican gatherings tell me they want more tax cuts”. “Okay, we can’t do anything about the war, and that’s the last thing we want to remind them about. Same with the tax cuts. Let’s concentrate on Jobs. What sort of jobs are important to your district?” “Well, there are Boeing jobs”. “Hmmm, we might want to avoid that one – McCain’s push to derail Boeing on the Tanker deal is something we don’t want you to remind voters about either. What other kinds of jobs are there. You are near Seattle, right? Lots of trade throught he ports, I’m guessing?” “Sure, but there’s no Port of Bellevue. At least I don’t think so. Maybe I’d better check on that and get back to you.” “Don’t bother, it’s not important. Look, theres a Congressional delegation going to Columbia regarding a trade deal with them. Get on it, then issue a statement afterwards to show how important the work you are doing is for trade in the region.” “Okay, you want me to say whether the deal is good or bad? How would I know that?” “That’s not for you to decide. We’ll give you all the talking points. All that is important is that you sound like you know what you are talking about, and keep saying over and over how important this issue is for your constituants. That’ll keep you in the news cycle, and we can use that for political advertisements later.”
@15
That’s pretty similar to how I’ve imagined it. :)
How does the new formatting look for you? As an admin, I’m seeing different things than you (although I’m not doing any of the work, Goldy is). Are you having the line breaks stripped from your comments? That’s what it looks like to me.
As I understand it, this “trade deal” forces Colombia to lower tariffs and open their market to the US without requiring much of anything from the US in return except to keep financing and arming the Colombian government. It’s a farce of a sham of a charade.
Lee, again I have to agree with you on this “Chavez (who is truly nuts)”.
So why haven’t you sided with us before now and chastise your “good friends” like Kevin Spacey, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn and Danny Glover, Cornel West, Naomi Campbell, etc when Puddy and others placed their stupid commentary for all to read on HA?
What character in Animal Farm does Hugo Chavez remind you of…?
“No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people support your revolution.” – Harry Belafonte – Really?
“I’ve been here for 24 hours and I’m amazed to see the love and encouragement for the social programs that you have here for women and children in Venezuela.” – Naomi Campbell. Isn’t this the same woman who recently beat her maid with a telephone handpiece?
www .usatoday. com/life/people/ 2007-10-31-campbell-chavez_N.htm
So Puddy asks when some people become wealthy (are they taxed enough) and successful in a capitalistic economy (actors and models – such rocket scientists, eh?) they need to tell us how they favor (Chavez’s) socialist revolution? How does that make sense? Wait a minute – they are librul loons. They don’t need to make sense. God surely named Kevin correctly. Listening to these peeps telling me how to think is like watching a diet show and Michael Moore is delivering diet tips. Or reading Pelletizer prattling on non-law subjects. Or debating Clueless Idiot on any deep thought topic.
Remember in 2006 AARP made Harry Bone of their persons of the year? Then when the good ol “mr tally man – tally me banabas” Belafonte call Bush a terrorist – AARP had to come out: “To our dismay, Mr. Belafonte has made reckless and irresponsible statements about the President of the United States which we neither support nor condone.”
www. aarp.org /research/press-center/presscurrentnews/ harry_belafonte_comments.html
en.wikipedia. org/wiki/ Harry_Belafonte
Waaa haaa haaa haaa haaa. Yet this was hardly a blip on the liberal MSM radar screen.
I already placed here how Danny Glover received $18 MM to direct a movie from Chavez.
Did you know there were 14,000 murders in Venezuela last year?
For the 14,000 murders in 2007 you can email contact Sofia the Venezuelean journalist – sofilu77@yahoo.com
Enjoy…
@19
Colombia’s population – 44 million
Murders per year – 32,000
Venezuela’s population – 26 million
Murders per year – 14,000
You do the math, shit-for-brains. Then, after you realize that Venezuela has less killing than our good buddies next door (by the way, roughly 5,500 of those 32,000 murders are for political reasons, the majority of which are committed BY the government), explain to me why anyone here is supposed to take your assinine commentary seriously.
Loony Lee: I wasn’t making any commentary on Columbia. In fact Loser Lee, where did I say anything about Columbia? Where have I made any Columbian Commentary except for Juan Valdez?
Look hard and look long Leftist Lee.
Maybe when you spit shine your ASS maybe your brain will work..
So when you find my commentary on Columbia show it to me Lardass Lee.
@21
First, learn to spell Colombia. It does not have a ‘u’.
Second, what possible point could you have been making with respect to the number of murders there are in Venezuela every year in response to a post about Colombia? I’m going to ask you more specifically – do you have a point here, or are you being retarded on purpose? Is there some rationale for ranting about Hugo Chavez in response to a post on Colombia and then being curious why I’m relating it back to Colombia, or do have some kind of mental illness that channels your stupid this way?
Lee, My point was I was agreeing with you on Chavez. You said he was crazy. I agreed. Look at posts 5-7. I haven’t spent one iota of my time looking at Colombia or anything else. So I pulled a Pelletizer here. Kinda nice huh?
1) I have to study the issue. I don’t take any Donkey side just because you post some stuff here.
2) Usually once I determine facts I sift them for left vs. right.
3) Then I view the final evidence. I don’t trust you or anyone else to post facts. I look at them myself.
And one more thing Lee, before you come screaming at me… clean your own side of the fence. Tell me how this fits into thread 4632:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4632#comment-767413
Yeah, I don’t expect much of an answer. So cry me a river when I post “V” facts in a “c” thread since you brought it up first!
Puddybud,
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. Roger Rabbit being an idiot is NEVER an excuse for you to be an idiot. The fact that every time I call you out for being completely assinine that your response is to point to something that Roger Rabbit said should be completely embarrassing to you. Grow up. You’re not a 5 year old.