Another Trade Mistake: Colombia Deal Would Worsen a Bad Situation

By Arnie Alpert

Supporters of a new trade agreement with Colombia have said that the deal would bolster efforts by the South American country to improve human rights and spur economic development, to the benefit of both countries. However, a closer look suggests that the corruption and violence run so deeply within the Colombian government that any talk of “free trade” should be met with skepticism.

Colombia’s political and economic climate is entrenched in deep inequalities. Decades of conflict with guerrilla groups, the rise of right-wing death squads tied to the military, and trafficking in illegal drugs contribute to widespread poverty in a country rich in natural resources.

Additionally, the Colombian government and army received $6 billion, in mostly military U.S. aid since 2001, to ‘fight the war on drugs and terror’-- despite the fact that both the government and military are closely linked to right wing death squads that are responsible for most of the country’s human rights abuses. Furthermore, after seven years of anti-drug counterinsurgency aid, the “war” model clearly has failed. Production of cocaine is up, not down.

Moreover, high-level corruption is part of a pattern of widespread human rights abuses. Today more than sixty members of the Colombian Congress are under investigation for ties to right wing death squads. Among them is President Alvaro Uribe’s cousin, former Senator Mario Uribe Escobar, who was recently arrested. Former intelligence officer Rafael Garcia, himself imprisoned for his role in covering up the criminal histories of para-military leaders, testified that members of the armed forces and government ministries, too, are enmeshed with the illegal militias.

Additionally, Colombia continues to be the most dangerous country for trade unionists, based on the number of assassinations which take place each year. Arguments that the rate of political murders is on the decline are unconvincing. The National Labor College, based in Medellin, reported a “worrying increase in assassinations against unionized workers” which in the first 3 months of 2008 occurred at nearly twice the rate of the same period last year.

There is no reason to believe a trade agreement would improve the situation. To the contrary, an influx of duty-free agricultural products and increased pressure for production of cash crops for export will most likely force out small farmers, just as NAFTA did in Mexico. Farmers who cannot earn a livelihood will feel increased pressure to migrate or join the drug trade. In a country where nearly 4 million people have already been displaced by civil war, that is a recipe for instability, not security.

Likewise, in the United States, NAFTA-style trade agreements are a significant factor in the ‘race to the bottom,’ where the search for cheaper wages drives jobs to countries where workers rights are even more disrespected than they are here.

For Colombia, a trade agreement with the United States will make a bad situation even worse. For the United States, a trade deal with Colombia will add to economic insecurity at home with no boost for security abroad.

Arnie Alpert is the New Hampshire Program Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee.

Another Trade and War Connection in the Americas

The Americas Policy Program has put together and excellent Primer on Plan Mexico. The report written by Laura Carlsen puts forward detailed analysis regarding the policy, its background and what needs to change. This policy as part of the expansion of NAFTA is a clear connection to what we have been talking about for the past few years on this site, mainly that trade and war are companion policies. Just as Plan Colombia is a failed policy which is now accompanied by an unjust trade agreement so are Plan Mexico and the expansion of NAFTA. Following is a summary of the Primer and a link to the entire document.

Plan Mexico
The Bush Administration has put its proposal to militarize Mexico into the upcoming Iraq supplemental bill. On Oct. 22, 2007 President Bush announced the $1.4 billion dollar “Merida Initiative” (nicknamed Plan Mexico)--a security aid package to Mexico and Central America. The initiative has fatal flaws in its strategy; instead of leading to a stable bi-national relationship and peaceful border communities, its military approach will escalate drug-related violence and human rights abuses.

The NAFTA Connection
The Bush administration’s concept of a joint security strategy for North America came to the forefront under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) as an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). When the three North American leaders met in Waco, Texas in March of 2005, they put into motion a secretive process of negotiations between members of the executive branches and representatives of large corporations to facilitate cross-border business and create a shared security perimeter. Subsequent meetings including the April 2008 trilateral summit in New Orleans extended these goals in total secrecy amid mounting criticism.

Secrecy
In this context, instead of reviewing polices and opening them up to public debate, the Bush administration has launched its boldest advance yet within the SPP context—Plan Mexico. Speculation was that the Plan would be announced at the Montebello SPP meeting in August of 2007, but perhaps because of the presence of SPP protestors at that meeting President Bush delayed the official unveiling of the “Merida Initiative” several months. However, the last two SPP meetings have included discussions of Plan Mexico and the State Department has been clear about the link.

Plan Colombia All Over Again
The experience of Plan Colombia reveals the pitfalls of Plan Mexico. Plan Colombia is a similar U.S. military aid package designed to fight the drug war. Since its inception in 2000, it has contributed to entrenched violence and corruption in that South American country while failing to reduce drug flows to the United States.

To read the rest of the Primer please click here.

Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi From Colombian Indigenous Organization

Cauca, Colombia
April 11, 2008

"Three years later, like us, you said no to the Colombia-US FTA"

Dear Representative Pelosi and Congress of the United States of America:

First, we would like to express our joy and gratitude for the decision made yesterday, April 10, 2008, in the United States Congress. With 294 votes in favor and 195 against, the House of Representatives, over which you preside, decided to indefinitely freeze the FTA between Colombia and the US. We know that this is but one step on a long path, but the result is profoundly meaningful for our peoples, and it opens a window through which we can breathe with strength and rejuvenated spirits. With this letter, beyond expressing our recognition and appreciation as peoples, we seek to open a space for communication between us, because we feel that we deserve the right to be heard and respected. It is long overdue that Democratic Party members of Congress under your leadership should become aware of our democratic decision and analyses, all of which are rooted in dignity and respect for life.

Little more than three years ago, on Sunday March 6, 2005, the first Popular Consultation on the US-Colombia FTA was carried out through a referendum held in six municipalities in the Department of Cauca, Colombia. In that free, open and transparent referendum, monitored by national and international observers and bound by strict electoral regulations, there was a level of participation that had been unprecedented in the history of our municipalities. Ninety-eight percent of the people responded NO to the following question: "Are you in favor of the FTA between Colombia and the United States?" The people expressed their sovereign and conscious decision. Since that first consultation, others have been carried out throughout Colombia, all with the same result.

On February 1, 2005, we had made public a proclamation in which we called for a national popular referendum on the FTA. We invite you to examine this document, which we reaffirm, and whose clarity and eloquence remain relevant today, even more so given the most recent decision of the US Congress. In order that you may understand our motives and perspectives, we believe it is our right to respectfully express this to you, as peoples reacting to a trade agreement that would deeply affect our lives. Through you, Rep. Pelosi, we invite the Congress and the people of the United States to read this proclamation and to treat its content with the respect and consideration that it deserves, recognizing the sovereign and democratic decision of our peoples.

It is important for you to know that from the moment of our carrying out the consultation to today, information on the FTA and its consequences made available to the people of Colombia through the government and the mass media has been absurdly distorted and entirely in favor of those interested in winning approval of the agreement. This has effectively closed any spaces for debate and discussion among diverse perspectives, which would be necessary for Colombian citizens to understand the issue and to take a substantive position on it. In the proclamation of our consultation, we asked: "If the FTA is so good, why is the population being misinformed, and why is the government so afraid of a popular consultation and a conscious and democratic decision?"

Today, in light of the decision you have made, we reiterate the relevance of that question. In spite of the barrage of propaganda in favor of the FTA and the manner in which fear was used to assure people that rejecting the FTA would be equivalent to the United States' abandoning Colombia in backwardness, those who participated in the referendum understood that quite to the contrary, approval of the FTA on these terms and under these conditions would be equivalent to pushing Colombia toward an abyss of backwardness, impoverishment, inequality, and war. We understand that the people of the United States also suffer negative consequences from these kinds of trade agreements, but it is ultimately up to you and the people of the United States to analyze and make decisions on these agreements and their consequences. Rep. Pelosi, the Colombian government was opposed and remains opposed to allowing the Colombian people to understand the real impacts of the FTA that has been presented to Congress; it has closed the spaces of democratic debate and ignored the results of the Popular Consultation. We therefore urge you to examine the Consultation of March 2005, our motives and arguments, the democratic decision of the peoples, and the consequences and implications of this decision. We also invite you to support the right of peoples to understand and decide. With respect to the FTA, this is a right that the Colombian government has not respected.

The Colombian government attempted to discredit the decision of the consultation, alleging that we do not understand the benefits of the FTA and that terrorists and other nefarious forces had manipulated the population. Our response to this disturbing and unfounded accusation is found in the text of the proclamation and in the reality of facts that speak for themselves. The position of the government is racist insofar as it still considers us primitive beings incapable of understanding and consciously deciding for ourselves. Moreover, it seriously threatens our lives and integrity by falsely claiming links with terrorists, claims that easily become death sentences in this country.

Read our arguments and see for yourselves if we can be accused of not understanding. In contrast with the Colombian government's reaction, read and respond with ideas, arguments, and substance. As we said in the proclamation calling for the consultation, we are opposed to neither free trade nor an agreement with the United States. We are opposed to this particular agreement, and we have reasons based fundamentally on substance.

Rep. Pelosi, Members of Congress, and people of the United States, three years after our proclamation and call to carry out a public referendum on the FTA, three years after our people said NO, in spite of the closing of spaces for debate and democratic decision-making, more than 60% of arable lands in Colombia remain in the hands of 15,000 families, less than 0.4% of the population of the country. This immense concentration of land is nonproductive in that the food that we consume comes from the poor, small producers; the large property owners do not produce food. Furthermore, the influx of subsidized agricultural products condemns peasants, indigenous peoples, and rural producers to ruin and hunger, as they face the impossibility of competing with less expensive products and artificially reduced prices. Free trade is making the production of crops for illicit use necessary for survival and for the attainment of basic economic resources. You are well aware that we are being displaced and forced off our lands through violence and war, which serves to open the countryside to the megaprojects of transnational corporations. This eviction has displaced 4 million of our compatriots to the cities, where they live in miserable conditions. This promotes only social and political violence and hatred, thereby perpetuating war and misery.

The agreement would place the price of life-saving medications beyond reach for the majority of Colombia's people and would permit the patenting of life-forms and our ancestral knowledge. The FTA, which you have decided to not consider for now, would back a government whose president, during a "community council" held on March 15, 2008, offered bounties on the lives of indigenous peoples who are struggling to recover the lands from which we have been displaced, lands to which we have a right in accordance with agreements with the very state that now criminalizes our struggles to access its own commitments. Agrarian reform has been transformed into a crime in order to protect particular interests that would benefit from the FTA. In the midst of war, misery, displacement, terror, and deception, there can be prosperity for no one. That is why we have rejected this FTA.

Rep. Pelosi and Members of Congress, we want a trade agreement that is actually an agreement, one that is negotiated among sectors that really represent the interests of peoples-not only among a few who act exclusively in the interests of big capital. We want an agreement that is free and not imposed unilaterally through propaganda, without debate or open and democratic consultation.

We want an agreement that has real trade as its content, trade that guarantees reciprocal opportunity, so that the well-being of peoples is realized in a manner that is autonomous and sovereign and protects nature and life. The FTA that you have decided not to debate for the moment promotes displacement, legalizes injustice, condemns us to permanent war, and leaves us behind.We celebrate the decision that you have taken, and we thank you. This means nothing more or less than respecting our lives. Receive our expression of immense gratitude to your people, and accept our invitation to understand the motives of the decision we made democratically three years ago.

Sincerely,

Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca Council

Why Afro-Colombians Oppose the Colombia FTA

Marino Cordoba, founder of the Association of Internally Displaced Afro-Colombians (AFRODES), submitted this post as a guest blogger for The Hill.

Feb 7, 2008

The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement is considered a non-starter in the U.S. Congress because the country is the world’s deadliest for union activists. Less known, but equally disturbing is the systematic violence now confronting Afro-Colombians.

African descendants comprise 26% of Colombia’s population. As with other African descendants, we face racial discrimination which results in economic hardships far worse than those experienced by the average Colombian. However in Colombia, a vibrant 1980s civil rights movement won full recognition of our cultural rights and collective ownership and community control of our territories and natural resources. The 1991 Colombian Constitution and the landmark Law 70 explicitly enshrine these rights and recognize official democratic Afro-Colombian governance structures, similar to those of your Indian tribes.

The administration of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has worked consistently to undermine our hard-won civil rights and our control of our territories. Systematic violence against our people and assassinations of our leaders continue unabated to this day.

At the end of 2007, angered by the strong opposition of the majority of Afro-Colombian communities to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA,) Uribe created a new Commission in Colombia that directly challenges our legal governance structure.

To read the rest of this article click here.

What kind of ally will we lose if we don't sign the FTA with Colombia?

About a week and a half ago I was in San Antonio to speak at a forum on trade organized by 32 community organizations who see the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as a "trojan horse" for both Colombians and U.S. citizens. As it turns out Colombian Vice President Francisco Santos was also in San Antonio (at a forum organized by the Colombian government) to bolster his argument that the U.S. would lose an ally in Latin America if the FTA does not get ratified. To learn more about his arguments you can read this article from the San Antonio Express News Paper:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/nation/stories/MYSA092807.15A.ColombianVP.32875b9.html

What the article fails to delve into is the type of ally that the U.S. would be losing. Does the U.S. really want to ratify a trade agreement with a government in which at least 12 Congressional legislators are under investigation for their ties to paramilitary groups which are responsible for some of the worst human rights violations in the western hemisphere? Is it ok to trade with a country that is well known for being the worst place on earth to be a union leader--the country in which most union leaders are killed every year? And is it enough that less union leaders are being killed in Colombia this year? Should the trade agreement be ratified with this country based on the fact that less people are being killed? Isn't one life lost enough to at least make us question ratifying this treaty?

Do we really want to maintain ties to a government that is infiltrated by paramilitary groups which the U.S. government categorizes as terrorists?

Clearly, the one size fits all approach of this trade agreements is not applicable and especially not in such a violent and corrupt context.

Lessons to Learn from Costa Rican Referendum

As we work on defeating the current Free Trade Agreement between the U.S and Colombia our colleagues from the Alliance for Responsible Trade (FTA) share with us some lessons learnt from Costa Rica's referendum on the Costa Rica-U.S. FTA. I am posting here the latest blog and certainly there will be more to come as we find out the results of this referendum. This comes to us from Tom Loudon:

Fear and lying in Costa Rica

As we head out to observe the voting on the CAFTA referendum, it seems appropriate to compare the state of democracy in the U.S. with that of Costa Rica. We have only been here a short time, but we’ve received an intensive course in Costa Rican history and politics. It has become obvious from this instruction that we in the U.S. have much to learn, if we are to prevent the complete dissolution of the few semblances of democracy which remain in our country.

We quickly learned that the referendum campaign has included a permanent and massive campaign of fear mongering from the Costa Rican and U.S. governments and a large segment of the corporate sector here. There are many examples of this operation.

Pindeco, a subsidiary of Dole, is the transnational which has the majority of pineapple plantations in Costa Rica. Most of their exports go to the U.S. They have threatened all of their workers that if the FTA is not passed, they will abandon the country, and all of the workers will lose their jobs.

This is a concept which is patently absurd. It is unthinkable that they would abandon all of the investment they have here so easily. In addition, if pineapple exported from here were threatened with a tariff for entry into the U.S., Dole would certainly have sufficient political clout in the U.S. to guarantee that nothing inhibits there ability to import the pineapple. Yet this lie they are promoting will undoubtedly affect the way the workers on the plantations will vote tomorrow.

In a similar way, DEMASA, a Mexican company which has purchased many of the tortilla making facilities throughout the country is promoting the lie. Every Wednesday they have been meeting in a luxury hotel with all of the plant supervisors, and telling them that if the FTA does not pass, they will leave. It seems unlikely that Costa Ricans are going stop eating tortillas if the FTA is defeated. Somebody is going to need to make them.

The U.S. government, per their permanent custom in Central America, has been up to dirty tricks, blatantly and illegally intervening in the internal affairs of this sovereign country. They seem to be stuck back in the 18th century, acting as if Costa Rica were their backyard. Since about a month ago, Mark Langdale the U.S. ambassador here would go out to the textile factories and threaten the workers that in the event that there wasn’t a FTA, the factories would all close. We read in the paper the threat that the sweatshops would all close, and the 14,000 jobs which still remain in this sector would vanish.

The State Department and the CIA always seem to wait until the last days of a political campaign to explode their most powerful bombs. This week their ‘tricks’ included a promise from the USTR Susan Schwab that in the event of a defeat of the referendum, there is no possibility for a re-negotiation of the treaty. What a patently absurd notion! Yesterday, President Bush released a statement reiterating the lie that a re-negotiation is not possible.
Other U.S. officials have threatened that the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which provides trade preferences here and in many other countries in the region, would be revoked.

Five minute long television commercials, played over and over, employed the most bizarre scare tactics to instill terror in people who don’t easily have access to other sources of information. The ‘Yes’ campaign spent piles of money placing these fear-based ads on TV.

What gives hope that democracy is thriving here is that in spite of the plethora of scare tactics, there were multiple spaces where the ‘NO’ campaign was able to present their point of view. Every day the newspapers are full of a multitude of stories, including extensive interviews with articulate spokespeople on both sides of the issue.

For the last several weeks, each Thursday night there have been nationally televised debates where knowledgeable people are invited to debate the merit of each position covering a variety of topics. The themes have included the following: FTA and employment, FTA and the environment, FTA and health care services, FTA and Social Security and Telecommunications. For anyone interested in becoming educated on the topic, this provided a powerful opportunity to understand the issues and make an informed decision.

How different than the reality in the United States. With virtually one political position coming from the only two parties which have any space, real debate on important issues is virtually nonexistent. We suspect that this is not an accident.

A week or so ago, in a small meeting with four U.S. Senators who oppose the trade model currently being imposed, the Senators asked if anyone had been successful in getting opinion articles placed in either the New York Times or the Washington Post. In the room were representatives of most of the key D.C. organizations who are working against this trade model. Nobody in the room, including the 4 Senators had been successful in having an opinion piece published related to these FTAs in either of these nationally recognized publications. The only thing these papers publish is the dribble from Administration and business voices, whose sole reason for being seems to be to satiate their unquenchable thirst for profit, regardless of the consequences for people or the environment around the world. TV stations and radio are even more closely controlled. This sad reality bodes badly for our democracy.

Soon we will know the outcome of the referendum, and we will report any process or procedural irregularities we encounter. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that after the referendum, Costa Rica will never be quite the same. We would do well to learn from the many ways the people of Costa Rica have succeeded in fostering debate and promoting an environment which offers real choices, rather than the snow jobs being stuffed down our throats in the U.S. Somehow we need to recover our democracy from the group of corporations who are holding it hostage.

(to read all of our blogs from the last several days in Costa Rica- go to: www.art-us.org, for a slide show from Costa Rica: http://quest.quixote.org/node/467#slides.

Community Forum on Free Trade in Colombia

This summer I spent a good amount of time travelling across the US and speaking about the impact of US military and trade policy on Colombia. It’s been exciting to see how communities in the US are responding to the critical human rights situation in Colombia and the pending free trade agreement. U.S. community members understand that there are winners and losers in these trade agreements and communities are on the losing end both here and in Colombia. Next week I will be speaking at one of these forums in San Antonio, Texas. The forum entitled: “Murder, Plunder and Corporate Profit: The Trojan Horse of Free Trade in Colombia” will take place on Thursday, September 27th at 6:30PM – 8:30PM AT&T Center at St. Mary’s University, Room 108. If you would like more information contact: Marc Jacobson at marc@texasfairtrade.org

Pending Vote on Peru FTA Paves way for Colombia

On September 11th the Senate Finance Committee held their hearing on the Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA) signaling their intention to vote on the trade pact in early October—the first trade vote since CAFTA in July 2006. The Peru FTA is part of the same “one-size-fits-all” model applied to the US-Colombia FTA and its passage could severely weaken our efforts to stop it.

The May 10th deal struck between Pelosi, Rangel and the Bush administration paved the way for Democrats to support the US-Peru and Panama FTAs (see my Aug. 20 blog entry). These fixes also apply to the Colombia FTA but leadership has made it clear more will need to be done before they support the deals. With minor fixes to the labor and environmental chapters and some easing of restrictions on medicine patents, Democrat leadership is now supporting the model they rejected with CAFTA. Many have argued that these changes will do nothing to address the enforcement problems rampant in Peru who lack the resources and political will to improve labor and environmental standards. But beyond enforcement issues, what is still missing in the public discourse is the fact that these fixes do nothing to address the broader human rights and moral concerns around the other 20 agreement chapters – especially in the areas of agriculture, indigenous knowledge, services and investment.

Not one Senator at the Peru FTA hearing mentioned the words development, human rights or concerns about the possible negative impacts in Peru. Instead the focus was on market access for US goods and, of course, security—invoking the threats of Presidents Chavez of Venezuela and Correa of Ecuador. Clearly the interfaith community’s attempt to expand the debate on trade is not yet gained traction in Congress. It also didn’t help to have the AFL-CIO witness go on record as not being for the FTA but also unwilling to say they are firmly opposed to it. This has caused a split within the unions (the Change to Win Coalition is firmly opposed) and has sent mixed messages to Congress—especially freshman members.

Despite this disappointment, the Colombia FTA remains extremely controversial—and US unions are unified in the opposition. This is primarily because of the Colombian record of union organizer assassinations, but also because of the growing scandal connecting the Uribe government with paramilitary death squads. The AFSC Trade and War in Colombia campaign is seeking to expand this debate. It is clear from the impacts of this model elsewhere that the FTA will exacerbate the existing humanitarian crisis faced by the Afro-Colombian, Indigenous and peasant communities in Colombia. A country approaching its fiftieth year of conflict cannot withstand the costs that will surely outweigh the benefits for those living in the rural and communal territories of Colombia.

It remains unclear when a vote could happen on the Colombia FTA. Yet this has not stopped the Uribe government from engaging in an aggressive campaign that includes creating awards and gala events for Bill Clinton, hiring Clinton’s PR firm, constantly lobbying Congress, and hosting endless delegations to Colombia for members of Congress. It boggles my mind to see how Congresspeople can visit a country on a government sponsored delegation and let what is so clearly a carefully constructed tour influence their idea of the daily realities in Colombia. The only way to ensure the delay and defeat of the US-Colombia FTA is to keep the pressure on Congress—this is most effective when coming from their own constituents.

Why would delaying the Panama FTA vote pressure Dems to vote on Colombia?

Friday we learned that the Bush administration is going to push for the Colombia FTA to be voted on in-between the Peru and Panama FTA votes. An insider daily journal reported, “Some very senior officials at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative seem to be convinced that they can force the consideration of the Colombia FTA by withholding support for consideration of Panama, according to an informed source.” (Inside US Trade 8/17/07)

Moving the vote in-between the Peru and Panama FTAs is an interesting tactic given the deal struck between the Bush Administration and Representatives Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi. In exchange for small fixes to the labor and environmental chapters, Democratic leadership promised ratification of the Peru and Panama FTAs when they came up for a vote. There was some speculation that the deal would also apply to Colombia and Korea, but controversy around these trade pacts put them solidly on the shelf—for now.

So why does the Bush Administration think making Democrats wait for a vote on Panama is a good pressure point to move the Colombia FTA forward? Could it be that there is little to no civil-society and union resistance to the Panama deal and the Democrats need a few trade agreements under their belt to prove to donors that they are pro-trade? The party’s money must come from somewhere. In a meeting with a key Congresswoman, a few of my colleagues on the Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment learned that the Democratic party is demanding each member representative pay $450,000 in dues—almost four times what they paid last year. This is in part why we are so committed to expanding the debate on trade beyond labor and environmental standards. We need to find ways to ensure there is real change to the flawed model and that political leaders can’t hide behind narrow interpretations and fixes.

As Representatives Rangel, Levin, Schwartz and Meeks return from their recess delegation to Peru convinced that the Garcia government will fix its labor law problems, I was struck by a quote from Luis Zuniga, president of CONVEAGRO (an agricultural consortium critical of the deal) in the Congress Daily today. He said, “The problem is, those who want an FTA in Peru are the same ones who do not want labor laws to be reformed in Peru”. He reiterated that more needs to be done to protect Peruvian farmers against the impact of imported subsidized crops from the U.S. This critical issue was not addressed in the trade “deal” and now unlikely to be dealt with in the U.S. Farm Bill as it heads down a predictable path of status quo.

Real reform for a more people-centered trade agreement will not come through incremental side deals. It will take more transparent processes and bold Presidential leadership that we hope to see from a new administration. Sounds like a good question to take to the campaign trail if you get a chance to do some bird-dogging.

Learning from other Free Trade Agreements

Much can be learnt from the experience of countries that have signed trade agreements with the United States and implemented neo-liberal policies to open up their markets. The Monthly Review recently published Oaxaca Rebellion against Marginalization, Extreme Poverty, and Abuse of Power which explains in detail the experience Mexicans have had due to these policies and the marginalization and violence that has ensued. The article is a good read for those who are learning about the effects of these policies.

Blood on the Palms: Afro-Colombians fight new plantations.

Written by David Bacon
David joined an AFSC delegation to Colombia last year to research for this article.

This article is from the July/August 2007 issue of Dollars & Sense magazine.

On Sept. 7, 2006, paramilitary gunmen invaded the home of Juan de Dios García, a community leader in the Colombian city of Buenaventura. García escaped, but the gunmen shot and killed seven members of his family.

The paramilitaries, linked to the government of President Alvaro Uribe and to the country's wealthy landholding elite, wanted to stop García and other activists from the Proceso de Comunidades Negras (Process of Black Communities, or PCN), who have been trying to recover land on which Afro-Colombians have lived for five centuries. The PCN is a network of over 140 organizations among Black Colombian communities.

García later told Radio Bemba, "when the paras [paramilitary soldiers] came looking for me, I could see they were using police and army vehicles. They operate with the direct and indirect participation of high government functionaries. So denouncing their crimes to the authorities actually puts you at an even greater risk."

South of Buenaventura along the Pacific, in the coastal lowlands of the department of Nariño, oil palm plantations are spreading through historically Afro-Colombian lands. The plantation owners' association, Fedepalma, plans to expand production to a million hectares (about 3,861 square miles), and the government has proposed that by 2020 seven million hectares will be used for export crops, including oil palms.

Helping planters reach their goal is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In what the agency describes as an effort to resettle rightwing paramilitary members who agree to be disarmed, USAID funds projects in which they are given land to cultivate. The land, however, is often located in historically Afro-Colombian areas.

On paper these resettlement projects may appear to be effective components of a national peace process. On the ground, however, what typically happens is that the paramilitaries take on the task of protecting the plantation owners' (and the government's) investment. And Afro-Colombian activists who get in the way pay a price in blood.

Afro-Colombian families displaced by development projects, especially the expansion of oil palm plantations, and by Colombia’s paramilitary and military groups who protect the projects, have created a squatter community, the November 11 barrio, at the edge of Tumaco, a coastal city in Nariño department. The city authorities have used trash, garbage, and even medical waste to create raised pathways between the houses. Water for dozens of families comes from a single tap. [Photo credit: David Bacon.]

See full article in the July/August 2007 issue of Dollars & Sense magazine.

Colombian Women to Visit Congress to Speak on Human Rights, Poverty and Trade

A delegation of six Colombian women will visit Washington on July 23-27 to meet with members of Congress and key partner organizations and discuss trade and war in Colombia from a women’s perspective. After Washington two of the women will travel with AFSC to New York City through August 1 to meet with grassroots groups, women- and human rights-focused NGOs as well as members of Congress in their home district.

All grassroots leaders of Colombian civil society, this extraordinary delegation includes trade unionists, lawyers, indigenous and Afro-Colombian leaders, and women representing communities displaced by the civil conflict.

The delegation will present up-to-date perspectives on violence and threats against trade unionists, the growing numbers of internally displaced people, and continuing abuses of human rights. They will also present their point of view on how Colombia’s rural poverty will likely be worsened by the trade agreement with the United States now before Congress.

The delegation is a result of collaboration between AFSC, Oxfam America, the Alliance for Responsible Trade and the Washington Office on Latin America.

The members of the delegation are:

• Beatríz Fuentes, president of the flower-cutters union Sintrasplendor at the company Splendor, which is owned by the U.S. corporation Dole and exports cut flowers.
• Martha Díaz, president of the civil servants’ union in Santander state, who has received numerous threats.
• Emerenciana Chicunque, leader of the Katmenza indigenous community in Putumayo, southern Colombia, an area of recent attacks by paramilitary squads on indigenous and other people.
• Pilar Rueda Jiménez, anthropologist and professor at La Salle University, Bogotá and leader of the alliance “Make Trade Fair”, a coalition of more than 30 unions and human rights and development groups across Colombia promoting the rights of women workers.
• Maura Nasly Mosquera Mosquera, lawyer and assistant to the National Conference of Afro-Colombian Organizations.
• Alba Lucia Giraldo, head of household and leader of the grassroots group Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, which has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the American Friends Service Committee, and one of the millions of Colombians forcibly displaced from their homes due to threats from paramilitary groups.

"Trading with Colombia"

On Saturday, June 23, 2007 The Chicago Tribune printed an editorial in support of the trade agreement with Colombia: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0623edit1jun23,1,1238302.story . We sent the following letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune in response to that article:

I was surprised to see The Chicago Tribune come out in support of a Colombia trade agreement, (Trading with Colombia, June 23), after expressing skepticism not long ago about U.S. military assistance.

The Colombian conflict is deeply rooted in political, economic and social inequalities. Almost half of all Colombians live below the poverty line. Working in tandem with the Colombian army, paramilitaries fight guerrillas over the same natural resources sought by U.S. investors. Forced displacement has become a way to seize assets from their rightful owners instead of an unintended consequence of battle.

The solution to Colombia’s troubling human rights record and disturbing history of inequality is not to send more military aid or to sign a trade agreement. It is not about left or right wing groups. It’s not just about cocaine.
The Colombia trade pact is modeled after a "one-size-fits-all" model based on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has caused the displacement of 1.7 million farmers in Mexico.

Colombia simply cannot afford to add to its already 3.7 million internally displaced, as this agreement would surely do.

Natalia Cardona

Hello from Atlanta

I have just arrived in Atlanta for the first ever US Social Forum! I can feel that another world is possible and certainly get that another U.S. is necessary.

My focus at the USSF is to explore new ways of collaborating on trade both inside and outside the DC beltway as well as working to bring the linkages between trade and war to all the forums I participate in. With tens of thousands of activists converging in Atlanta, it is a prime moment in US movement building history. I am thrilled to be a part of it.

I will send daily thoughts and updates so check it out. My first task is to promote our workshop on trade and war in Colombia (see below description). If you can imagine there are 120 consecutive workshops taking place. That is some fierce competition.

Making Colombia Safe…for Investors

Thursday, June 28 from 10:30 – 12:30

Days Inn Downtown - Dogwood conference room
300 Spring St NW (between Simpson and Baker St.)

Plan Colombia has fueled the fires of the conflict in Colombia and aggravated what the UN calls the worst humanitarian crisis in the western hemisphere. In light of this disaster, the US government's daily $1.6 million outlay for the drug war in Colombia is unjustifiable.

Despite these violations and the failure of U.S. policies to reduce coca production and end the now 50 year-old conflict, the U.S. is preparing to fund Plan Colombia II and has negotiated a new free trade agreement (FTA) with Colombia.

This workshop will feature three speakers from Colombia, including
- Carlos Rosero, PCN (Colombia)
- Hector Giraldo, SINTRAOFAN (Colombia)
- German Bedoya - Coordinador Nacional Agrario (Colombia - not confirmed)

They will help us explore root causes of the conflict, economic and exploitation aspects that sustain the conflict, and how the new free trade agreement is connected to this.

Organized with Witness for Peace