Colombia Free Trade Agreement - Page 3 - PhillyBlog

eldondre · #21 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankdialogue

coffee...maybe Columbia gets a discount on the price of weapons, and on the cost of US 'security contractors'...I don't know of any other big 'import-export' items that are involved in US-Colombian trade...could be just a political thing, too, as Venezuela, Peru, Brazil and other South American nations have formed their own regional trade bloc, Mercosur...I don't believe these nations are too interested in a 'CAFTA', or a 'Trade Bloc of the Americas' run by the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Wall Steet and the World Bank.

I don't know if Brazil is against it, but they aren't going to sign it with one way terms...which would mean unfettered access to some markets tat woudl upset a powerful interest in the US..the sugar and corn producers. Brazil doesn't much trust Venezuela.

eldondre · #22 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

Well we did say we wouldn't support governments that harbor and train terrorists....so we rightly shouldn't make a trade agreement with the Colombian government or provide them with billions of dollars of foreign aid every year...

not as simple as that

Quote:

Colombian prosecutors ordered the arrest of President Alvaro Uribe's second cousin Tuesday for alleged ties to right-wing paramilitary groups. The arrest is part of a scandal that may hurt Colombia's bid for a free-trade deal with Washington...The affair shows the extent to which paramilitary groups -- most of which have disbanded in a peace deal with the government -- infiltrated the Colombian political system during the past decade. More than 70 current and former congressmen and state governors are being investigated; at least 30 are in jail.
"The paramilitaries have systematically greased the wheels of politics in Colombia and brought people to power," says Bruce Bagley, a Colombia expert at the University of Miami. Mr. Bagley estimates the number of politicians implicated in the scandal could go as high as 80% of congress...
There is no evidence the president himself had links to paramilitary groups, who were responsible for many of the most gruesome killings in the country's civil war. But most of the lawmakers arrested or under investigation are members of Mr. Uribe's party or of parties that support him. Among those jailed is Mr. Uribe's former private secretary when he was a state governor.
Mr. Uribe hopes the case won't affect U.S. passage of the trade deal, said an official in his office. The Colombian president, among the Bush administration's closest allies in Latin America, has won high marks at home and abroad for bringing the country back from the edge of a failed state. An aggressive military push partly funded by the U.S. has driven left-wing guerrillas into remote areas, and a peace deal with paramilitaries reduced violence around the country. Colombia's economy is now growing quickly and Mr. Uribe enjoys an 84% approval rating.
Mr. Uribe says the scandal shows Colombia's institutions are working. To arrest so many lawmakers would be inconceivable in most Latin American countries, which are plagued by weak justice systems. Colombia's courts have proved to be aggressive in defending the law...The paramilitary groups, often accused of working hand-in-hand with the army, carried out mass killings of guerrillas and suspected sympathizers. The now-disbanded AUC, an umbrella paramilitary group, was considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government -- the same designation given by Washington to their main opponents, the communist FARC guerrillas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1208...ews_whats_news

Quote:

In an attack using these weapons yesterday, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP) killed a 10-year old boy and injured more than 20 civilians, members of the Nasa indigenous group.
"The FARC-EP’s continued use of gas cylinder bombs shows this armed group’s flagrant disregard for lives of civilians," said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. "The FARC must immediately cease these horrific attacks, which violate the most basic principles of the laws of war."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1208...ews_whats_news

Mars · #23 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 03:29 PM

And I repeat...

[AGAIN the Colombian Government's illegal paramilitary forces are not exactly benign angels...TRADE Unionists are not terrorists..maybe to the Government they are because they want to exploit peasants and squash Marxist labor movements and cover it up under the guise of the "drug war." This is not to say that there aren't FARC rebels that engage in terrorism as well. But state terrorism is not any more justified than non-state actors that engage in terrorism. The problem is that the Colombian government doesn't necessarily distinguish between Militant groups and political groups..just like people who equate Islam and ALL muslims with "terrorism" or "Islamo-Fascism" whatever the hell that means ...

Evidence of Colombian State sponsored terror can be found here...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB217/inde x.htm ]

eldondre · #24 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

And I repeat...

Did you read what I posted? Of course there are problems but they do appear to be making great strides in cleaning them up, which is more than one can say of its neighbors. Did you catch raider's NAFTA thread?
BTW, part of my family immigrated form mexico (some went back, then came back to the US) . quality of life down there declined long before NAFTA. Immigration is speeding up as the network that gets illegals here has become a well oiled machine.

Mars · #25 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 04:52 PM

I read both and disagree with the overall premises.The fact you're continuing to engage also leads me to the presumption you haven't read my posts or considered my sources or arguments. If you have then again we've already agreed essentially to disagree because we approach Free Trade or it trappings from different prisms or paradigms. Sometimes we run parallel sometimes we diverge but we never converge. From a business standpoint NAFTA has been a success...from a social standpoint it hasn't benefitted Mexico necessarily. One of my sources already touched upon this dichotomy. Mexican's are still emigrating en masse and moreso since NAFTA took effect (a matter of public record). This piece touches upon it and notes Monterrey and the North as an exception rather than the rule.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/we...uchitelle.html

If it weren't for NAFTA, would even more Mexicans migrate from the North to the U.S? Plausible but we don't know for certain. My girlfriend still came here but she always says she didn't want to leave her roots as most immigrants including my parents lament. There was and still is to a lesser extent a north and south "problem" in their home country just as there's currently one in Mexico which is more pronounced. The North is industrialized and the south is agrarian and less developed. All the wealth is concentrated in the north but concentrated wealth doesn't necessarily promote a democratic or stable prosperous society.

It seems you are a libertarian and I have some libertarian tendencies with respect to economics in particular. Even Dr Paul makes a convincing argument against NAFTA which I happen to agree with to a large extent but not completely. I don't believe in complete unfettered laissez faire neoliberal free trade or globalized economic markets because capitalists..particularly crony capitalists do try to corner markets and engage in excesses when left to their own devices as the current economic situation in this country proves (structured finance debacle). Something Adam Smith himself presciently warned against. In those instances taxpayers foot the bill and it's a form of corporate welfare.What's going on now with respect to the investment banks and the Fed is quite breathtaking and the Bear Stearns incident was a watershed moment for finance capitalism.

The following piece talks about Dr Paul's view on NAFTA..

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontra...ul-for-fr.html

eldondre · #26 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

If it weren't for NAFTA, would even more Mexicans migrate from the North to the U.S? Plausible but we don't know for certain.

Yes, like most things, it's hard to know. A certain poster here has a coworker who left mexico willingly, despite having a relatively good position in life. My aunt was repaid for her hard work witha devalued pension (not to mention a lack of clean water and many things people take for granted). this was pre-NAFTA. my grandfather left shortly after the revolution, tired of waiting for a better day. Many immigrants do miss home, which is only natural. peopel do, of course, frequently choose to leave home as well and if rules made it easier to immigrate, many more would do so he same way people move around the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

. All the wealth is concentrated in the north but concentrated wealth doesn't necessarily promote a democratic or stable prosperous society.

no, but a stable economy has allowed the emergence of a growing middle class and other things we take for granted like mortgages to buy a home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

particularly crony capitalists do try to corner markets and engage in excesses when left to their own devices as the current economic situation in this country proves (structured finance debacle).

the free market sometimes needs to be protected from capitalists...particularly when the state benefits from an alliance with one. this is nothing new, really, and cornering markets, etc existed long before capitalism (free movement of capital). indeed, colonial economies which were predominantly mercantilist based their view on controlling markets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

In those instances taxpayers foot the bill and it's a form of corporate welfare.

corporate welfare, of course, is not a form of laissex faire economics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

What's going on now with respect to the investment banks and the Fed is quite breathtaking and the Bear Stearns incident was a watershed moment for finance capitalism.

Unfortunately, it appears that the the diagnosis will be wrong. much like the fiat inflation of France, US capitalism is beset by rampant speculation caused by excessive growth in the money supply. the economy has become dependent upon asset inflation rather than value creation, IMO. The Fed is, essentially, trying to clean up its own mess, although it will never admit that.
from the link

Quote:

If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.

true enough.
back to columbia, the country seemingly has made enormous strides. The downsides to the agreement seem small. No real proof has shown that trade hurts our standard of living or theirs...unless it isn't actually the terms are not actually lowering barriers but manipulating markets. I have not seen that shown about this agreement. Columbia has been ground zero for the misguided drug war, I think we owe it to them to at least give them a market for their legal goods and services. It may not be perfect, but it's a far better strategy than our Iraqi war. For Colombians' sake I hope for continued improvement in their quality of life that appears to be taking place.