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.
