 |
The Death of the US-Colombia FTA |
 |
It’s no surprise that an editorial in today’s Washington Post is urging the Dems to give up their obstructionist ways and pass the US-Colombia FTA; after months of opposition from Congressional Democrats, and the recent revelation of gross human rights violations by the Colombia military, the agreement seems to be in its death throes. Our military aid to the Colombia (the largest recipient outside the Middle East) is being temporarily suspended, and President Bush has resorted to a “Let’s Make a Deal” approach.
This death deserves some applause (it was an imperfect deal negotiated on vastly unequal terms), but I am mostly ambivalent. As the editorial linked above points out, Colombia has enjoyed preferential trade treatment for over decade now, and our use of the deal as leverage in reducing violence in Colombia is as silly as it is ineffective: think about it, we give over $600 million dollars a year in military aid to Colombia, but we’re using a pending trade deal to reform behavior? Why aren’t we leveraging that $600 million? Why are we giving that much firepower to a government that legislators admit needs reform?
It’s time we focused on heart of the matter: our military aid to Colombia, which through a series of convoluted amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act comes through the Pentagon’s budget. Make no mistake, its suspension is political theater. Expect the resumption to happen quietly, and soon. A Pentagon advisory group’s recent warning that the current budget is not-sustainable, however, in conjunction with a recommendation for cuts, should intensify our focus on the utility of this aid.
Plan Colombia’s ostensible purpose is to prevent the flow of cocaine from Colombia to the United States. In this regard it has been an abject failure; cocaine remains readily available in the US and coca production in Colombia has increased steadily. What end have our billions served? If you point to recent advances in the war against the FARC, I’ll counter that this is not supposed to be a counter-insurgency effort. If you say the war against the FARC and the War on Drugs are synonymous, you still have to answer the question ”how can advances against the FARC be accompanied by setbacks in the War on Drugs?”
The truth of the matter is that Plan Colombia is, and always has been, an effort to secure benign conditions for US multinationals with operations in Colombia. The US media refuses to connect those dots, but US legislators should not. Rejecting this FTA is the perfect opportunity for a re-examination of our intimate relationship with Colombia, one we should not pass up.
Two words: Narco insurgency.
If the 600 million in military aid was accompanied by the 300 million originally planned for social aid, the plan might have worked. Misguided article, go to Colombia and see the effects the cancellation of the FTA will have on the flower and textile industries, the major employers of the country. Good luck with the war on drugs.
Thank you for your text, it makes me think about Chiquita Brands and about what this mutinational did in Colombia between the end of 90’s until last year. FTA will increase war in the country, and USA will see more poor illegal colombians working inside borders. I’m not sure that flower and textil colombian industries will be better with FTA. And I’m sure those two industries aren’t the major employers of the country.