Bush seeks support for Colombia

Sr Tertius says on Dec 4, 2007, 11:58:

How exactly is the absence of an FTA going to destabilize Colombia? (it may be inconveniente, MAYBE, but "destabilize" it?)

The last paragraph is, unfortunately, very true.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Dec 4, 2007, 12:08:

Re the last paragraph: was the result really 49% v. 51%? That's what people may never know, and since there wasn't the normal contingent of 'respectable' election observers the issue may never be raised.

Re absence of FTA: it could really hurt Colombia if the FTA fails and the US Congress chooses not to renew the unilateral trade preferences that have been in place for a decade or more. They've already extended them for two six-month terms; I think Feb 2008 is the next expiration.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Dec 4, 2007, 12:10:

I finally agree with Bush on something!

HERE'S SIMON!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Dec 4, 2007, 12:30:

All Uribe needs to do is iniate a more Robust and Indepth investigation of all the Deaths of those Colombian Trade Unionists and Newmen who have been killed in the recent past. That is the Holdup on the part of the US Congress. Everything has strings attached and I hope the US Congress doesn't Blink on this Important issue. These Deaths have to be investigated,,,

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Dec 4, 2007, 22:30:

wait until the libs get in the White House, they will push Colombia aside. Colombia's best friend in the US is the Republican party.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Dec 5, 2007, 01:27:

Historical Facts don't exactly support your Claim Scotty; Plan Colombia and all the Money it brings(and has brought) was iniated by Bill Clinton, a Democratic President.GW Bush merely continued what Clinton started,,,

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Dec 5, 2007, 04:33:

Senate Approves Peru Trade Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/business/05trade.html?ref=business

The Senate gave overwhelming final approval Tuesday to a trade agreement with Peru, as most Democrats joined nearly all Republicans in handing President Bush an unusual victory but leaving prospects unclear for other trade deals.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

donmia says on Dec 5, 2007, 08:26:

unfortunately, mike makes the point. the entire free trade movement was started under Clinton. Not that the Republicans didn't want it before, but it was going nowhere until the democrats bucked their union supporters who don't want this kind of thing.

You can trumpet all the Republican support you like, but they could have done these deals when they had control of the white house and both houses of Congress. the Democrats did not matter for several years there - they voted lock-step together and had whatever they wanted. Truth is, Colombia and free trade wasn't a priority - Iraq was. And that's because it's sitting on 30 billion barrels of oil. No, not an angry liberal about it. We'd have to be idiots to pass up a chance to make a grab for the largest untapped oil reserve in the world.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

donmia says on Dec 5, 2007, 09:07:

Yeah, but Republicans still drink the blook of puppies.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

donmia says on Dec 5, 2007, 09:09:

oops. blood of puppies. and they've just turned Blackwater loose in Colombia. (Um, not that they had anything to do with that directly . . .) That should be fun.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Dec 5, 2007, 09:41:

donmia, Where do you get this stuff?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Dec 5, 2007, 09:42:

I happen to know most republicans are very fond of puppies, as matter of fact it's the libs who tend to be cat people :)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

donmia says on Dec 5, 2007, 09:57:

that's a running joke out there among the libs. All over the websites. "Cheney drinks the blood of puppies while stalking the streets of D.C. thinking up other countries to invade for no reason." stuff like that. not really serious.

but the blackwater thing is true (as best I can say). cousin in the air force just came back from missions in colombia. he's pretty upset about the push to use blackwater. mostly because he believes war is hell, but these guys take it to a different level. They enjoy what they do.

oh, and for the record - not much on cats. I guess none of us can be pinned down to any one thing.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 5, 2007, 10:14:

GiB: Well, it's not like we were supposed to just sign whatever the U.S. wanted us to, and even then the resulting FTA is quite questionable in several areas. I don't believe agreeing to whatever the U.S. first proposed would have been any better, to say the least.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Dec 5, 2007, 10:28:

juance, I don't think GIB was commenting on the why's of it not getting signed quickly - only that the republicans proposed the outline first. I think his concern was the internal to the USA credits, republican or democrat.

I didn't see the orginal proposal, but I have no doubts it was unpalatable to Colombia, for many reasons. Our Congress has a knack for proposing onerous deals....jajajajaj

This current democratic blocking of the FTA is purely them playing to their union bases here, in an election cycle, in my view. Not that the union issues involved on the Colombian side are trivial, but I think using this issue as an excuse for not making a deal is simply election-cycle politics...

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 5, 2007, 10:46:

Agree with slguy. Everyone in politics--at least those who are somewhat successful in keeping their office--care about their turf more than anything else. Political gestures of generosity always have a second motive, which is not necessarily bad in this imperfect world.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 5, 2007, 10:50:

slguy: That too, but I think he went a bit beyond that.

GiB: "They were very active in pushing Colombai to sign the thing and Colombia kept dragging it's feet. Only until it looked like they would get nothing did Colombia start getting into the game."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Dec 5, 2007, 10:51:

Good point. My bad.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Dec 5, 2007, 11:01:

GIB--you need to carefully reread my post and the Context in which it was written as a Reply to Scotty's preceeding post. Congressional Records will show I am 100% correct in stating Plan Colombia was signed by Bill Clinton in his Administration in JULY 2000(but under planning since 1999). I would say by Clinton's signing of this, he indeed was acting as a Good Friend of Colombia. True, the Democratic Congress(with a few republicans in the mix also) HAVE RECENTLY HELD UP THE FREE TRADE(WHICH IS ANOTHER SEPERATE ISSUE BTW). All Uribe has to do, as was mentioned earlier, is iniate a more indepth vigorous into the deaths of the Trade Unionsits killed in recent years in Col. What is wrong with that?? If you have evidence to the contrary on who signed Plan Colombia, please post your link for all to see,,,

http://www.colombiajournal.org/plancolombia_ecuador.htm

"There have been numerous attempts over the years to bring an end to the violence and drug trafficking in Colombia. The latest is a proposal drafted by the Pastrana administration in 1999 called Plan Colombia, which is a comprehensive plan for peace, prosperity, and the strengthening of the state.

In 1999 President Pastrana visited the U.S. to garner support for his proposal.*********** In July 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law a $1.3 billion aid package as the U.S. contribution to the plan********* and, in March 2001, President Bush and members of the U.S. Congress announced their desire to regionalize the plan and increase its budget.
The plan includes ten strategies (economic, fiscal and financial, military, judicial and human rights, counter-narcotics, alternative development, social participation, human development, peace and international affairs) designed to address all aspects of the problems Colombia faces. These strategies include actions to stabilize the economy, promote trade and investment, stop drug activity at the production and trading levels, reform the judicial system, promote democratization and social development, and further the peace process in general",,,

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 5, 2007, 11:25:

GiB: It's funny that you reach that conclusion, when the U.S. economy is clearly both considerably bigger and far more developed than Colombia's (or Peru's, or....), to say the least. But that's a different subject.

Now, let's keep in mind I was not even trying to describe what actually took place in detail.

I was just commenting on how you're trying to blast Colombia for those delays as if it were a simple matter. When, in fact, it does make sense for Colombia to discuss and debate a trade deal that's, essentially, going to affect us (for better and for worse) a lot more than it will ever be able to affect the U.S. (just look at the size and status of the two economies, for one thing...can't believe I even need to mention this).

Btw, I don't know enough about the Peru deal to confirm or deny what you've just said, but it makes little difference. It still wasn't voted on by the U.S. Congress until ***very recently***, when the Democrats were already in power. So that comparison hardly changes that much, making your point ultimately moot.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 5, 2007, 11:40:

First, I'm not even saying that "size is bad", so let me try to explain this again.

It's you who were saying that the deal was/is bad for the U.S., and I'm telling you that the deal is going to affect us, both proportionally and absolutely, a lot more than it will ever affect the U.S. economy (because of several factors including, but not limited to, its size and development).

As for Peru and Panama (IIRC, that's the other trade deal the U.S. still needs to vote on), look at what I said earlier.

Even if we had done everything at the same speed, the Democrats would still be in power by the time it was going to be voted, which means they'd probably be making the same objections to the deal.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 5, 2007, 12:06:

I don't know about Canada, but it's funny how there are Mexicans who complain a lot about NAFTA costing them many jobs and other things too...maybe it's not such a one-sided case of "free trade deals are always good for Mexico and Canada, always bad for the U.S."?

I'm not even saying the opposite either, that the deal *only* has negatives for Colombia (or Mexico, or Peru, etc.) and all the rewards belong to the U.S. In fact I've never said that. I don't think it's that simple.

But it's not exactly a gift from heaven either, and I do think it's fair to think that the deal could have been better, considering we're going to be affected by it more than the U.S. ever will, and that (for example) many of our farmers may need protection, compensation or conversion measures not currently contemplated (existing ones can't possibly be compared to U.S. subsidies, I trust you'll admit).

Btw, you vaguely speak about "property rights"...I assume you're talking about intellectual property rights, aren't you? In that case, the U.S. has in fact introduced measures into the trade deal addressing such matters. But the problem of piracy is actually worldwide in its reach and more complicated than that. It's hardly something that "Colombia" or any one country can resolve, let alone when piracy often exists precisely because reasonably priced legal alternatives are scarce and don't take into account the reduced purchasing power of many people in poorer nations, often expecting them to pay first world prices (or more).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Dec 5, 2007, 12:49:

I'm not certain that ANY FTA is clearly defineable, who benefits more, and who benefits less. The implications of all these deals are too far-reaching, and contain too many nebulous spillover affects, in my view.

juance's correct, of course- the impact on the Colombian economy will be greater, on a percentage basis, solely because trade with the US represents a bigger percentage of total trade for Colombia, than Colombian trade does for the US.

I have some education in economics and a fair amount of international biz experience, but even trying to begin any rational analysis of the impact of the various FTA's makes my head want to explode. The economic impacts are much like a religious text- one can find support in the data for almost any position one wants to take.

I think it just boils down to- does one believe in a global economy, and encouraging trade between marginally at least, like-minded countries? Or does one prefer to remain on the sidelines of the burgeoning world economy? I AM comfortable in saying that if the USA were to reverse it's free trade atitudes, the Chinese would sooner rather than later displace us as the world's leading economic power. I think this development is inevitable- just a question of time.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 5, 2007, 18:36:

"I'm not certain that ANY FTA is clearly defineable, who benefits more, and who benefits less"
I agree, and I think things get even more complicated when the wrong questions are asked. "Who benefits more? Colombia or the US? Mexico or the US? Canada or the US? Lithuania or Singapur?" They are all false questions. I think the appropriate questions are "Who in Colombia benefits with FTA? Who in the US? Who in..?" Note that on both countries there is always people opposed and people in favor of FTA, and everyone has good reasons for holding their position. So, slguy, I don't think the difference between these people is a matter of interpretation as much as a matter of interest.

"I think it just boils down to- does one believe in a global economy, and encouraging trade between marginally at least, like-minded countries?"
This I don't agree with. Everyone likes trade. Even Chavez, the poster boy of the so-called "anti-globalization" movement loves to trade. The question is HOW would you like to trade. Would you like to trade by lowering environmental and labor standards to their minimum? Would you like to trade by imposing sanitary and copyright regulations that most thirld world countries can't keep up with? Or would you rather trade on an even field, with standards and regulations that are satisfactory to both sides and that are democratically agreed upon? That's what it boils down to.

"I think this development is inevitable- just a question of time."
Spoken like a true Marxist. From the Manifesto: "All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned ... the need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere"

Good ol' Karl missed the mark on many things, but on this one, he hit the nail!

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Dec 6, 2007, 10:52:

But that's the thing, SrT.

Absent pretty clear knowledge of who benefits and how, how does anyone dictate anything?

I'm all for level playing fields - but I think the US, for example, is WAY out of line insisting on certain behaviors by trading partners. For the dems to insist that Colombia more thoroughly investigate the trade unionists' deaths more is laudable- but has ZIP to do with free trade. Unless someone can demonstrate very clearly how vast the benefits are to Colombia - if I were Colombia, I'd give those dems the bird.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 6, 2007, 11:27:

"Absent pretty clear knowledge of who benefits and how, how does anyone dictate anything? "
I'd go first by my own interest. If I benefit, I say yes, if I don't, I say no. Majority wins.

"For the dems to insist that Colombia more thoroughly investigate the trade unionists' deaths more is laudable- but has ZIP to do with free trade."

Couldn't disagree more. It has EVERYTHING to do with trade. And it's not for the benefit of Colombians--which is good, but again, I don't buy any politicians altruism. It's for the benefit of US labor. Labor that can't effectively exercise its right to organize and bargain is cheaper, and for US labor to compete against it, it would have to lower its own standards.

Again, the question is not Colombia vs US, or any two countries. In Colombia, labor organizations--among many other people--are also very much opposed to the FTA in its current form, and its them and other Colombians that are giving the argumental ammunition to the Democrats to take down the FTA as it is now. All is fair. Let the best case win.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Dec 6, 2007, 11:36:

Again, it's a philosophical difference, not really an economic difference.

I personally feel no need to protect american organized labor. the day when unions did anything substantive for american labor, except price it out of global markets, is long passed, in my view. Unless of course, one belongs to a union that gets one overpaid dramatically.

But no one with eyes open can deny union activity in Colombia is needed. I just don't see that investigations under pressure from the US accomplish much. seems to me, this is a thing the Colombian people have to demand of their government, for themselves, rather than the government being bullied into it by a trade agreement.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 6, 2007, 11:48:

I agree with your last paragraph, but I insist that that is not the effective intend of the Dems, I don't think. You may not feel that organized labor in the US needs this kind of protection, but other people feel they do. I don't think big pharma needs more patent protection for their R&D (which is part of the "F"TA), but they certainly disagree. Everybody pushes for their own interest.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Dec 6, 2007, 12:28:

See? This is the point I have been trying to make all along.

FTA's are too nebulous to clearly define who benfits, so the negotiations inevitably digress into protecting american unions, encouraging other countries to investigate internal problems, blah blah blah.

To me, the only questions should be "in general, is this a country we want to encourage trade with, or isn't it?". Markets are fluid enough to find their own levels, generally speaking, in my view. To impose our views on other countries' internal affairs is just wrong, especially when we use a VERY nebulous carrot to further these goals. If we truly have serious problems with Colombia's internal handling of the unionists' murders, there are other tools to avail ourselves of, to encourage our goals.

Our current president (who I voted for twice, out of "the lesser of two evils" doctrine) has, to large degree, destroyed our international credibility and image. For the dems to further project our "holier than thou" image over ANY country's internal affairs is completely counterproductive, using trade agreements as tools in furtherance of these goals.

I never thought I would feel this way- but I'm even sick of my own country's meddling in other countries' internal affairs. If an FTA with Colombia, or Peru, or even Eritrea will demonstrate to the world that our government is capable of encouraging our ideals without being so foking heavy handed, I'm for it.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 6, 2007, 12:56:

"See? This is the point I have been trying to make all along."
I actually don't see how we are making the same point. But before we go there, I just have a question.

In the context of a trade agreement, why is it okay for the US to demand from Colombia the enforcement of intellectual property legislation that would allow corporations to compete against knockoffs in Colombia, but it should not demand the enforcement of labor legislation that would allow US labor to compete against Colombian labor?

I think it is all in the same package. The labor part, though, has a nice, easy to sell secondary effect of elevating the standard of labor in Colombia, but as I said, I do not believe it to be the ultimate purpose of the unions in the US.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Dec 6, 2007, 16:24:

I thought I was pretty clear SrT. I'm not in favor of the US telling Colombia anything about how to run their free enterprise system.

From my perspective, both sides accept current systems on face value. Vote up or down.

Trying to level the playing field between US and Colombian labor is like trying to tell these love-struck newbies not to use Western Union. It simply ain't gonna happen.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 6, 2007, 21:40:

"I'm not in favor of the US telling Colombia anything about how to run their free enterprise system."
I'm lost. I thought you were more favorable of FTA, maybe I misinterpreted that? The critical implication of FTA, of course, is that both parties play by some agreed rules, so each have to push the other to do things they would rather not. That's why it takes years to negotiate these deals. Colombian agrobusiness wants less sanitary restrictions to compete in the US, US coal wants less environment restrictions in Colombia, US labor wants this, Colombian labor wants that... that's the whole deal.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.