Robert Gates; Recognize the FTA for What it is(and isn't). Miami Herald

miamimike says on Apr 8, 2008, 00:33:

Exerpt from above link: "When Colombia asked the United States for help in 1999, rebels controlled more than half of Colombia's countryside -- and had expanded operations into neighboring countries. ""The Clinton administration worked with Colombian leaders to write a comprehensive recovery plan and secured bipartisan congressional approval of an emergency assistance package.""

Within two years, the investment began to pay off. In 2002, President Alvaro Uribe was able to double drug-crop eradication efforts and collected a wealth tax exceeding $800 million to train and field new army and police units."

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." GW Bush

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 8, 2008, 09:25:

Regardless of whether one believes that a FTA is good for Colombia, there are several parts of it that need to be renegotiated before it would be even marginally acceptable. I won't go into detail for the nth time, but there are some major issues relating to generic drugs, telecom and various other things that are extremely unfair to Colombia and are reason enough to kill this agreement as it is currently written.

miamimike says on Apr 8, 2008, 10:01:

CG-I agree. sually when a Bill is Hustled through Congress without a good vetting by both sides, Bad Bills slip through and become law. I cannot understand why Bush is in such a hurry to pass such a Bill that could have long lasting ramifications that may not be beneficial to either country. Hurried Authorization for the Iraq war still lingers in many of our Mouths,,,


Colombia remains the most dangerous country in the world for union members—39 trade unionists were murdered in 2007 and another 17 to date in 2008. Of the more than 2,500 murders of trade unionists since 1986, only some 70 cases—about 3 percent—have resulted in convictions.

Balanced trade agreements must guarantee the right to organize, lift the lives of workers in both countries and prevent exploitation. But this can’t happen in a country where workers who try to organize are killed.

Colombia’s government has thwarted workers' right to organize and bargain collectively—by weakening labor protections, refusing to register legitimate unions and failing to enforce the law against anti-union discrimination.

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." GW Bush

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 8, 2008, 10:18:

Except....This thing was NOT hurried through the negotiation process. Go to the website of the USTR (U.S. Trade Representative) and check out the time line, look up the number of trips Uribe & Co. have made to the U.S., or check out the date it was finalized (sometime in 2006). I think Colombia waited too long, asked for too much, and failed miserably at judging the U.S. political environment, including the big change in the make-up of the U.S. Congress.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 8, 2008, 10:27:

"asked for too much"

If anything, they haven't asked for enough. As usual, the Colombian government is more concerned with their oligarca masters and couldn't care less about the average worker. Several of my family's businesses would probably benefit a great deal from the FTA, but it is a bad deal overall for Colombia so most of us are still against it.

cali373 says on Apr 8, 2008, 10:28:

Grant it I agree that Plan Colombia money has helped Colombia just as it has helped the U.S. Military contractors which is the unofficial purpose of plan Colombia. Historically since WW2, the U.S. has approved "aide" which has benefited military contractors.


The other factor that skews the results of Plan Colombia is that Uribe is the only president that has demanded results from his military. High ranking military officials of the past have only passed the time in order to qualify for a pension.

What the FTA and plan Colombia have in common is beyond me. It is two different topics. It is interesting that the defense secretary has an opinion on trade agreeements. shouldn't it be the trade rep or commerce sec, but why a defense sec?

Aren't there 4 wars to worry about?

I am thinking Gates is one of the few that Bush has in his cabinet that actually qualifies to be in the cabinet.

Smile if you are a thinker!

Simon says on Apr 8, 2008, 10:53:

Charting Colombia's Progress (why the FTA should pass):


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/93761.pdf

"You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do."---Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark)

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 8, 2008, 10:59:

Sorry Simon, but Bush propaganda is the last thing I would look to when it comes to unbiased, useful information. The FTA will be very bad for Colombia and the only reason Bushisimo wants it is because it is good for large US corporations.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 8, 2008, 11:00:

I guess that 80% reduction in murders of union members in 6 years doesn't qualify as "doing enough" or "progress".

miamimike says on Apr 8, 2008, 11:06:

CG/Simon--Bush would like a signed FTA as part of his Legacy,his Legacy Portfolio is rather light at the present.

Hollywood:"Of the more than 2,500 murders of trade unionists since 1986, only some 70 cases—about 3 percent—have resulted in convictions." What has been done with the other 2,430 cases which to date are not accounted for?

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." GW Bush

Simon says on Apr 8, 2008, 11:09:

Sorry CG, the FTA will be good for Colombia. It will generate new jobs and opportunities for many Colombians who would otherwise probably resort to crime. And if there's one thing I remember from my Economics class is that in free trade, the winners win more than the losers lose. Overall, I think it will be positive for Colombia.

"I guess that 80% reduction in murders of union members in 6 years doesn't qualify as "doing enough" or "progress"."

Good point!

Next thing you know Obama and Hillary are going to demad for there to be 0 homicides in all Colombia for the FTA to pass!

"You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do."---Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark)

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 8, 2008, 11:34:

Miamimike, you'll never hear me say that Colombia doesn't have a big problem with murder, in general, or a big problem with impunity (meaning people going unpunished for crimes). But in my opinion, the US labor movement is using the murder issue as a straw man to oppose the Colombian FTA. The REAL reason they oppose the FTA is they feel it threatens union jobs in the US. And that's a perfectly fine reason for them to oppose it. I don't believe, however, that the US labor movement really gives a gnat's ass about the conditions of their union brethren in Colombia. If they did, they would probably have to conceed that the FTA would result in MORE jobs for Colombian union members and an eventual strengthening of Colombian unions.

Simon says on Apr 8, 2008, 11:37:

"But in my opinion, the US labor movement is using the murder issue as a straw man to oppose the Colombian FTA. The REAL reason they oppose the FTA is they feel it threatens union jobs in the US. And that's a perfectly fine reason for them to oppose it. I don't believe, however, that the US labor movement really gives a gnat's ass about the conditions of their union brethren in Colombia. If they did, they would probably have to conceed that the FTA would result in MORE jobs for Colombian union members and an eventual strengthening of Colombian unions."


I've never agreed with you more!!

"You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do."---Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark)

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 8, 2008, 11:59:

Simon, Do you think it is a good thing for Colombians to have to wait twice as long to have access to generic versions of new drugs? If for no other reason, this is grounds to renegotiate the FTA.

Simon says on Apr 8, 2008, 13:58:

I agree with you that there are some things about it that need to be renegociated.

"You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do."---Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark)

Rubito says on Apr 8, 2008, 14:03:

Simon, if the US disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow do you think that Colombia would survive without them?

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 8, 2008, 14:11:

Once the the currently negotiated agreement is approved by all the necessary parties and goes into effect, the US will never agree to renegotiate those undesirable provisions and Colombia will be stuck with them for the foreseeable future. That is why it is critical that the FTA not be approved in its current form.

I agree that the trade union issue is just an excuse for the US unions to kill the agreement, but if it means that Colombia has a chance to renegotiate those points, then the end result is positive. Also, there have been some rumblings in Colombian legal circles as well as the Colombian Supreme Court about the potential unconstitutionality of various provisions of the agreement. I don't care what ends up causing this current agreement to die, so long as it does and ends up renegotiated without those harmful provisions.

Simon says on Apr 8, 2008, 14:29:

No, I don't think we'd last long without the US. That's why I hope Colombia starts broadening it's horizons regarding international trade (i.e. China, Canada, and India).

"You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do."---Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark)

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 8, 2008, 14:33:

Well, you can't re-open the negotiations on one thing without re-opening the entire matter. All bilateral agreements are a give-and-take. This one is no exception. Given the power that big pharma wields across the political spectrum in the US, I have a feeling that renegotiating a provision to make it more unfavorable to that business is probably a non-starter.

romy says on Apr 8, 2008, 15:00:

From Colombia's perspective I guess it doesn't bother you guys that the professional jobs will go to Americans, while Colombians will have to resort to being labourers.

[April 08, 2008]
U.S. Insurers Hope for Peace in Colombia Trade Talks (http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/04/08/3375268.htm)
(BestWire Services Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) U.S. insurers are hopeful that Congress and the Bush administration can work out an agreement allowing both sides to support the pending U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, but are trying to steer clear of the political wrangling that thus far threatens to derail the pact.

Among the deal's financial services commitments are that Colombia will eliminate measures requiring U.S. firms hire national rather than U.S. professionals, and that both mutual funds and pension funds will be permitted to use portfolio managers in the United States. The agreement also would allow U.S. investors to "enjoy in almost all circumstances the right to establish, acquire, and operate investments in Colombia in an equal footing with local investors," including binding international arbitration, according to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab.

Using his trade promotion authority, President Bush sent the pact to Congress in the form of directed legislation the morning of April 8. The TPA, also known as "fast track" authority, requires that Congress take action on the deal within 90 days. In a press briefing, Bush said "waiting any longer to send up the legislation would run the risk of Congress adjourning without the legislation ever getting voted on."

Finalized in February 2006 and signed by representatives in both countries in November of that year, approval of the FTA has nonetheless been held up by concerns raised by some congressional Democrats about Colombia's labor and environmental standards, prompting several revisions of the original pact.

More recently, presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., among others, have declared opposition to the deal until the Colombian government demonstrates progress in controlling violence targeting the country's labor leaders.

According to Schwab, two-way trade with Colombia reached $18 billion in 2007. The South American country's life insurance market has averaged between 15% and 18% growth over the past four years to reach $1.8 billion, while the nonlife market has enjoyed 19% growth and currently stands at $2.5 billion.

"We support the goals and substance of the agreement, but understand the politics involved at this point," American Council of Life Insurers spokesman George Burke said. "ACLI will continue to monitor the situation as it progresses through Congress."

"Trade liberalization continues to be an important remedy for our current economic distress, and particularly in this environment, we need to be opening up more markets to U.S. goods and services, including insurance, especially services where there is a favorable balance of trade," said David Snyder, vice president and assistant general counsel for the American Insurance Association.

Snyder expressed hope the United States, "for our own domestic interests, as well as the interests of developing countries," also would continue "to push as hard as it can as fast as it can to approve these bilateral agreements and to push to a successful result in the Doha development round in the (World Trade Organization)."

In December, the Senate voted 77-18 to ratify the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement, which overturned a number of unilateral preferences called for by the 16-year-old Andean Trade Preference Act (BestWire, Dec. 5, 2007).

(By R.J. Lehmann, Washington bureau manager: raymond.lehmann at ambest.com)

Copyright ? 2008 A.M. Best Company, Inc.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 8, 2008, 15:05:

This whole one sided agreement bothers the hell out of me. Colombia will become flooded by cheap US goods and services and Colombian industry will end up losing. US industry has great advantages in the many areas that will help it derive great benefits from this agreement at the expense of the average Colombian worker, farmer and consumer.

Romy, I will have to get back to you with specifics about the telecom issues you asked about it in the other thread. I want to make sure I post accurate information, but it essentially boils to down to some cumbersome requirements that the agreement places on Colombian telecom companies in order to ease the entry of US telecom firms into the market. Basically, it would be like forcing the Trojans to open the gates and drag the horse into the city.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 8, 2008, 15:32:

Romy, why in the world would a US company hire a US national to do a professional job in Colombia when a highly qualified Colombian (let's just say an accountant or a lawyer) with a great education will do that same job for 1/4 the salary? Your argument doesn't hold water.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 8, 2008, 16:19:

This whole one sided agreement bothers the hell out of me - ColombianoGringo.
----------------------------------------------------
Me too. The one-sided, 16-year old Andean Trade Preferences Act, that is.

http://www.tradeagreements.gov/s/groups/public/_doc/_os/_opa/documents...
http://trade.gov/fta/colombia-partnership-for-prosperity.pdf

Can the Presidents of Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Chile all be wrong? They're on record (see the 2nd link) as encouraging passage of the agreement. Granted, some of them may have had a figurative gun to their head, but Mexico and Canada certainly did not.

Me? I don't really care. It's small potatoes/much ado about nothing; prominent only because it's election season. Kudos to Bush, though, for throwing it out there much sooner than expected and making the mealy-mouthed politicians vote on it before BEFORE the election. Just when you think the guy's incapable of an intelligent decision... Haha.

romy says on Apr 8, 2008, 16:53:

Hollywood, why do you suppose removing that protection from Colombia is highlighted as benefits to US labor in this agreement?

Right now I can think of:
1.US companies already have their accountants/lawyers in the US, that can do a lot of the work that is being reserved for Colombians. Though, I'll admit that not all the work can be taken back to the US because there still need to be people that understand the Colombian context.
2. I doubt you'll find a reference that indicates Colombian accountants/lawyers are being paid 1/4 the salary that an accountant/lawyer, with the same seniority, working for the same company in the US. There's a reason the most coveted positions for any professional in Colombia is with the multinationals.
3. Companies spend a lot of money in training Colombians because they are forced to hire them. Even then, many companies such as oil companies do the most they can to be able to send engineers from up north to work down in Colombia. It's crazy the amount of people that have been to Colombia, here in oil town (Calgary AB), because of work.
4. In hiring a foreign worker a company has to deal with cultural differences that adds to the cost of the worker to the company (not necesarily salary)

romy says on Apr 8, 2008, 16:58:

Tinto, that's the thing it is 'small potatoes' economically for the US. But it's not 'small potatoes' for the growing socioeconomic disparities in Colombia.

I would suggest US interest in the FTA lies in what seems to be a neo-Cold War with Hugo Chavez.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 8, 2008, 17:08:

In the near term, say the next year or so, it might also be small potatoes for Colombia. I have not read about plans to eliminate the six-month and one-year extensions to the Andean Trade Preferences Act we've recently been giving them. So if the pending trade promotion agreement fails, commodity prices stay high and the security situation stays about the same, Colombia will be doing just fine.

A little further out, though, with Democrats controlling Congress and in the White House, there may not be an appetite to start up Free Trade discussions again and people may be getting tired of renewing and paying for the old, one-sided agreement. THAT'S when a failure to pass this agreement could begin to hurt Colombia.

romy says on Apr 8, 2008, 17:12:

I'm not talking about Colombian product exportation. I'm talking about the lives of the people that are marginalized and how this agreement will aggravate their situations, while also marginilizing more people.

miamimike says on Apr 8, 2008, 17:36:

Simon says on Tuesday April 8th, 2008 14:29:

No, I don't think we'd last long without the US. That's why I hope Colombia starts broadening it's horizons regarding international trade (i.e. China, Canada, and India).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon- Two Issues with what you wrte:
1) Where was China and India when they needed Help in their time of need in the 90s?

2) If you desire increased trade with Colombia, how will Colombia handle the One sided trading as far as Trading with China whose Currency is fixed? If Colombia does, it will end up Upside Down just as the US has with China Holding a Huge Currency Imbalance over the USA. They will come to Colombia and suck out all of Colombia's Natural Resources then send back to Col flooding the market with its cheap imports(which to an extent they already are doing) putting many Colombians out of work in the process. China will send in its own Managers for any business located in Col. At least when Colombia trades with the USA, currency wise, they are the same footing with currency as both countries float their currencies. Not so with the Chinese,,,This is a huge Issue, sadly here in the USA Bush has done nothing to date with China to rectify this issue. Clinton says she will if elected, the other two(mcCain, obama don't say what, if anything they will do) Careful what you wish for,,,

I fail to see how delating this issue a year or so will be a deal breaker for Colombia and hope Congress stands firm and doesn't let itself be bullied into fastracking a FTA deal as they let themselves be fooled into giving Bush fast approval to invade Iraq. We (sic) know what a "Great Trade" tha has been for the USA. All that Iraq Oil supposed to pay for the War but to date its not going to the USA. Currently the USA is going into debt to the tune of 12 Billion monthly to finance the Iraq Excursion. Where's the Oil Money?

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." GW Bush

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 8, 2008, 19:48:

Romy, in answer to your questions:

"1.US companies already have their accountants/lawyers in the US, that can do a lot of the work that is being reserved for Colombians. Though, I'll admit that not all the work can be taken back to the US because there still need to be people that understand the Colombian context."

Answer: US companies already use their home office folks for stuff that can be done there. But you need local experts who understand law and taxes Colombia. That won't change.

"2. I doubt you'll find a reference that indicates Colombian accountants/lawyers are being paid 1/4 the salary that an accountant/lawyer, with the same seniority, working for the same company in the US. There's a reason the most coveted positions for any professional in Colombia is with the multinationals."

Answer: I don't need a reference. I speak from extensive personal experience. While local hire jobs with multinationals are, in fact, coveted in Colombia, they don't pay nearly as well as the "expat" jobs within the same organizations. Same goes for local hires working for the US government in Colombia, too.

"3. Companies spend a lot of money in training Colombians because they are forced to hire them. Even then, many companies such as oil companies do the most they can to be able to send engineers from up north to work down in Colombia. It's crazy the amount of people that have been to Colombia, here in oil town (Calgary AB), because of work."

Answer: You may be on to something with the oil companies. I know that oil exploration is very specialized and there may not be Colombian equivalents. But I haven't noticed anyone stopping the oil companies from sending expats, already, so what would change under the FTA?

"4. In hiring a foreign worker a company has to deal with cultural differences that adds to the cost of the worker to the company (not necesarily salary)"

Answer: Such as what? Every multi-national I know in Colombia does EVERYTHING in its power to fill positions locally rather than bring in expats. Expats, particularly from the US, are VERY expensive. Why in the world would they fill a job with a more expensive expat than an equally qualified local at 1/3 to 1/4 the price?

miamimike says on Apr 8, 2008, 20:24:

A friend of mine in the not too distant past was offered a Job in Bogota as an accountant for a Multi-national Petro Firm. He turned it down but they sent another Contador from the USA, they didn't hire a Colombian.

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." GW Bush

Rubito says on Apr 8, 2008, 20:48:

So if Colombia needs to broaden trade with other nations why are they even wasting their time pursuing a deal with the US that really isn't that good for them?

---Violence is the price of freedom.---

romy says on Apr 8, 2008, 21:08:

Hollywood- I asked "why do you suppose removing that protection from Colombia is highlighted as benefits to US labor in this agreement?"

the rest of the things you mention are obviously your opinion and you are very free to come up with this.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 8, 2008, 21:15:

Not sure I completely understand your question. Do you mean removing the requirement that jobs be offered to Colombians first before companies can hire foreigners?

If so, I still don't see the threat. Show me any real world examples where a job that would currently go to a Colombian would go to a US Citizen. US citizens are simply not looking to move en masse to Colombia, first of all, and in most cases we're WAY too expensive. The labor migration flows the other way.

poco says on Apr 8, 2008, 21:24:

MM Quote: A friend of mine in the not too distant past was offered a Job in Bogota as an accountant for a Multi-national Petro Firm. He turned it down but they sent another Contador from the USA, they didn't hire a Colombian.

Sorry Mike,, but unless a person has very special talents,, (they can't hire a Colombian) they will NOT get a work permit. It has been this way for years,, and years.

This is not to say short term requirements can be filled when an employee travels to Colombia.

Yes,, unless you say something to convince me otherwise,, you are dead wrong.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

miamimike says on Apr 8, 2008, 21:59:

That is just what happened Poco-the Job was for a period of a Year with specific qualifications as an accountant with construction experience. He has worked these Temp jobs throughout the Americas for the last 25 years or so.So whether you beleive it or not, your Pregoative, but that is exactly what happened. Nothing more, nothing less, no embellishment,,,

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." GW Bush

poco says on Apr 8, 2008, 22:24:

There are plenty of accountants in Colombia. I see no reason to pay for foreign help, especially a contractor, especially with an oil company. It makes no sense. If I was running a project there would be no way in hell I'd spend one red cent more than was necessary.

There are cases requiring specialized training to extract reports and interfaces with other packages,, SAP for instance. However, this would be closely linked with data base management and familiarity with development of interrelated reporting, even an interface between packages which can be as simple as excel. Far above an ACCOUNTANT.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

aztec says on Apr 9, 2008, 05:11:

Colombia and Cat
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120769888492599767.html?mod=googlenews...

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 9, 2008, 11:03:

Mike, anyway, the case you're citing is happening WITHOUT the FTA, so what's the point? If it's legal now it will also be legal then. I still don't see a huge run of gringos flocking to Colombia for the surplus of high paying professional jobs.