The struggle for Colombia

scotty says on Jun 14, 2007, 20:06:

thats good thats a good post Simon, interesting and informative.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Simon says on Jun 14, 2007, 22:20:

Thanks man.
Thanks man.

"DON'T FOK WITH COLOMBIA!!"-----Simon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

timeforachangeofscenery says on Jun 15, 2007, 03:23:

Perhaps some points of debate. I have one or two points that I hope might inspire debate amongst the posters here. I don't intend to ruffle any feathers here. I would simply like to present arguments that maybe the posters here might be able to clarify for me.

Firstly, what will be impact on your average colombian of the Fair Trade agreement with the USA?
Ok. Well. Firstly, goods arriving from Colombia will no longer attract tariffs when entering the USA. This tarriff reduction should theoretically make Colombian produce more competitive against goods produced in the USA. Colombian coffee farmers and flower growers are probably dancing in the street as we speak.

The other side of this coin is that no goods from the USA will attract tariffs when entering Colombia. I'm pretty sure that considering the Colombian aversion to paying taxes (has anyone ever shopped at San Andresito ??), there will need to be a major crack-down on tax-free goods being sold in places like this for a Fair Trade Agreement to have any benefit for American producers.

Secondly, one of the demands made by the US to Australia before implementing their FTA was a major change and restriction to the "Fair Use" laws and a strengthening of US intellectual property rights in Australia. I imagine that similar demands will be made on the Colombian government prior to a FTA being implemented there.

What might be the ramifications of such a move in Colombia ? Perhaps new laws policing the reproduction and sale of DVDS in the streets ??? HEAVENS!!!!! - where will I buy my $2 new release DVDS from ????

Bearing in mind the costs involved in policing the many additional laws that will need to be passed in order to comply with a FTA, the US government may well find itself in the unenviable position of needing to send even more money to Colombia in order to assist the Colombian government implement the measures required by their own free trade agreement.

I can understand why the US government might want carefully consider all of their options prior to a decision being made.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Jun 15, 2007, 05:22:

hmmm time you give us things to think about. i do agree with one thing the coffee and flower and a few others will be dancing in the streets, but since when have we ever been competitive with colombian flowers and coffee?

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Waterdawg says on Jun 15, 2007, 09:09:

It means I have a better chance to compete with the Asian Markets ( TLC ) , which in turn means I am the cause of more Colombians working ! What ya think ?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

JMCana says on Jun 15, 2007, 09:19:

Part of a game Timeforachange – logical thought and questioning. You are part of the 23% in America that research says does that.

The editorial is very similar to one published not too long ago in the Washington Post. In that one, none of the editorial staff has taken credit for writing it. And in this one there is no name attached to it. The writing employs a common technique of admitting a fault then putting a spin on it and making a conclusion statement that does not necessarily address all the factors affecting it. A one-sided conclusion, but plausible without thought.

One of my favorites in the article is: “It's impossible for Democrats to argue that shutting our markets to Colombia will lead to positive and constructive change.”

I can think of a couple reasons why it is possible to argue that and I am sure juancegomez could throw a few in there as well.

Both of the editorials came out shortly after Colombia hired the PR firm of Burson-Marsteller. That group is headed by Mark Penn, who happens to be Hillary’s Clinton’s chief strategist. Both editorials have his and the groups fingerprints all over it IMO. Mr. Penn is good at what he does. IMO he is one of the best. Consequently he gets paid the big bucks.

And this whole beginning is only slightly different than what Colombia paid the PR firm of Sawyer/Miller $3.1 in commissions for a few years back.

The very very simplistic scenario might go something like this. Burson-Marsteller already knows that 10% of the American population will endorse Plan Colombia and the FTA no matter what is said about Colombia. 10% will not endorse it even if Uribe was the 2nd coming of Christ. That leaves 80% of the population to convince. Research has shown that anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans can be swayed by the same tactics used in the editorial. What is hoped for now is that some lazy journalist with a good name or editor for an impressive publication needing to fill space quickly will publish an article saying all these positive things (something very similar to what John Negropointe, 2nd in the State Department, wrote in the Miami Herald). Colombia or the PR firm will then purchase the re-print writes to the story and pass it like the “word of God” to congress members and others.

Congressmen are hit with many issues and it is difficult to really research everything and ask pertinent questions. Iraq is also kind of big on their minds at the moment. True, they have staff that is there to investigate and advise, but the staff frequently takes the easy way out as well or accepts help from lobbyists. (these people are not always the sharpest pencils in the box) And there are other considerations influencing the congressman’s decision (yes, it is a big political game with favors). But what the congressman needs is a very plausible explanation for voting the way he does that will be accepted by the majority of those in his district. One of plausible explantaion he has just been given by the PR firm and lobbyist. (Heck the article even gave a good one for labor-intensive states. They basically state that Free Trade has nothing to do with killing labor union members. And besides Colombia has been doing it for a long time anyway.

So, the congressman gives his reasoning. The general public has read the same thing (even tough it was an editorial) in the newspaper that they have come to trust, and bingo – it must be the right because my congressman and my newspaper agree. (again research has shown this works for most Americans)

So with the first 10% of the population accepting it and now with at least two-thirds of the 80% accepting it you now have at least 63% and possibly 70% population seeing it your way.

However, in this case, we have the Unions and Dems working a little of their spinning. And we have all read the articles crucifying Colombia without presentation of the safer roads, reduced kidnappings and economic increase.

The truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle. And it depends on whether you believe what is good for the rich and elite is best for Colombia or if you believe what is good for the common working person is best for Colombia. And of course how it affects you personally.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Jun 15, 2007, 09:26:

FTA All the considerations for the FTA were already taken into account, as the FTA has already been negotiated during the last few YEARS, and both the Colombian and USA governments have agreed. The issue now is the ratification of the agreement signed, by the congress of the USA. Now with the newly Democratic controlled congress in the USA and in the run up to elections in the USA, the FTA with Colombia has become a political, rather than an economic issue and the Democrats need the support of the Unions.

Sadly to say this political issue may have repercusions internally in Colombia, as this slap by the supposed "friends" in the USA has given plenty of political gain to those Chavez supporters in Colombia who would like us to join his anti imperialist campaign. The USA goverment should know better, but sometimes it looks as if the USA can care less about what happens south of the border until it is too late.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

JMCana says on Jun 15, 2007, 11:26:

Confused Juanalejo -
Not trying to start an argument with you with my comment here, just looking for clarification backed by details.
Are you saying that the high death rate of union members with little prosecution is something people should not be concerned with, should not be taken into consideration with regards to the FTA or that it should be addressed in another manner? If the latter, then what manner that would have the most impact on having things change? Are you also saying that passing the the FTA as currently written would have absolutely no negative repercussions on the USA, especially the union labor force? Is it the USA who is a friend of Colombia, or is Colombia who is a friend of the USA because of all the money they receive? Are you also saying that the over $5 billion dollars given over several years for Plan Colombia can be considered "care less about what happens south of the border until it is too late."?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

timeforachangeofscenery says on Jun 15, 2007, 14:58:

Timely and spirited debate. I have to say that I really am delighted to be involved in such a spirited debate.

Waterdawg presents a typical point of view and it appears at face value to be a compelling argument. Colombian goods and services will, once tariffs have been removed be in a much better position to compete with Asian produce. This indeed has the potential to increase business and theoretically employ more Colombians.

One might also like to consider what might happen to other Colombian primary industries once all tariffs and excises are removed from American products entering the country.

American FTA negotiators have always been careful to negotiate fiercely to protect their "program crops". This being corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton and rice. This is understandable as these crops receive over 80% of US budget funds allocated to agricultural support.

These commodities are ALWAYS the big gainers in most of the FTAs signed by Washington
and these gains have always been taken at the expense of farmers in the countries involved in the FTA. For an example of this, you need look no further than Mexico, whose primary markets were negatively impacted in a major way when their FTA went ahead.

The commodities in which countries like Colombia do have a production cost advantage are fruits, vegetables, sugar and livestock. Importation of these products unfortunately also present other challenges to US producers in the form of food safety, invasive species, quality attributes, nutritional content and the challenges posed by supermarket leadership of food supply chains.

So Waterdawg, your assertion is correct. There is the possibility that you will be able to hire more workers in your industry, if your industry happens to be fruit, vegetables, sugar or livestock. On the other hand, there is also the strong possibility that the new workers you are hiring will be coming from farms that used to supply corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton and rice.

Timefor

0 funny, 0 helpful.

timeforachangeofscenery says on Jun 15, 2007, 15:11:

An aside. While negotiations for the Thai FTA were in progress, Bantoon Sretthasirote, director of the Resources Strategy Project of the National Human Rights Commission Office, alarmed at the inflexibility of the US negotiators (who often quoted the US Trade Promotion Authority Act as a reason to discount Thai friendly amendments to their FTA), and alarmed that the negotiations were conducted in secret and thus possibly violated the Thai constitution, offered the following analogy.

"PM Thaksin is afraid of what will happen if we cannot get on the last train, but he is unaware of the total cost of riding on such a train. It’s dangerous to have only a ticket, without knowing the details of all costs that must be paid to sit and use the facilities on the train."

After tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets in Thailand and the head negotiator resigned, senator Faleomavaega from America Samoa is quoted as saying the following:

I am not an economist but I don’t think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why our wages and pensions are suppressed and why American workers are losing their jobs. We end up with such high trade deficits not only with our Asian partners but also with our European partners and our friends in Mexico and South and Central America. As a result of NAFTA, more than 500,000 American workers have lost their jobs in the textile industry and this is just one example of trade policies gone wrong.

Thankfully, the Thailand Free Trade Agreements are stalled as a result of political uncertainties including the resignation of Thailand’s lead negotiator and demonstrations by ten thousand people who have disrupted the talks. As a result of the hearing held by the House International Relations Committee, I am hopeful that the negotiations will continue to be placed on hold and, more importantly, I hope the Bush Administration will use this time to really question whether Free Trade Agreements are good for the USA.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 15, 2007, 15:22:

Disarmed most of its militias? I'm sorry but don't the guerillas still count as a "militia"? They're a private army, with lots of weapons, doing lots of harm.

So even if we take at face value the "disarming" of the paramilitaries, the biggest Colombian "militia" is still fully armed.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Jun 15, 2007, 16:53:

Colombia is caught in an illusion, at the moment; I don't think anything will change as for the congressional consent, until after presidential elections in the USA are finished. Then, there will be room for 'them' to change and revert back to helping the Republic. "Republic?" Well, they're trying, I guess.
Where's the peso at today?

Just my guess.

Voy para del Sur

Why Not Colombia?..........Stay Tuned, for more.... utterly worthless, self-indulgent gobbets of nonsense.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Jul 5, 2007, 05:00:

I'd like to see Colombia and USA become much closer in everyway tourism, finances, trade, everything. whe do we try so hard to work with countires like mexico that doesnt even like us when we could do much more business with colombia.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.