![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.375in" height="2.375in"}

# Colombia Free Trade Agreement

**Editorials**

**04/10/08 -- 04/23/08**

**What\'s at Stake in Colombia**

By JAMES A. BAKER III

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

April 23, 2008

I\'ve worked in politics long enough to know that when politicians spend
too much time locked in partisan conflict, they can forget what they
were fighting about in the first place. Unfortunately, this may be
happening with the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

The White House and Congress have reached an impasse. As a result, an
economically and geopolitically important agreement is hanging in the
balance. If our leaders in Congress don\'t change their approach, a
critical building block for stability in an important region of South
America may fall victim to domestic partisan squabbling.

I know an agreement can be struck because, for more than three decades,
trade has been a rare issue that lends itself to consensus. As recently
as December, Congress displayed the type of bipartisan leadership that
Americans desire when it ratified a free trade agreement with Peru that
is very similar to the one proposed for Colombia. And yet, this spring,
the world is watching to determine if the United States will remain
committed to embracing a free-market global economy, or display a
growing isolationist attitude that can befuddle and vex our allies
around the world.

The economic arguments that favor the agreement with Colombia are clear.
Today, approximately 90% of Colombian exports come to the U.S. duty free
under the Andean Trade Preferences Act and other agreements. President
George H.W. Bush signed it as a way to counter the drug trade. By
increasing trade, the law has helped create almost 600,000 jobs in
Colombia, and these jobs are the best defense against the
narco-traffickers and the terrorist networks they support.

While the Andean measure is an important and necessary pillar in our
efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs, it also means that American
companies and workers do not play on a level playing field. We can
change that by passing the Colombian agreement. Once enacted, over 80%
of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia would
immediately become duty-free, and all remaining tariffs would be
eliminated within a decade.

Members of the U.S. Congress should also consider the national security
arguments that favor this free-trade agreement. Colombia has long been a
valued ally in a region that is increasingly becoming adverse toward our
interests. Bolivia and Ecuador are to one degree or another antagonistic
toward the U.S., and Venezuela is outright hostile.

Compare that to Colombia, an openly supportive, long-time ally that has
long partnered with the U.S. on economic and security matters. Colombia
was there when we needed an ally in that region. The backbone of the
U.S.-Colombia security relationship, Plan Colombia, was started by
President Bill Clinton and continued by President George W. Bush. Since
Plan Colombia was conceived in 1998, the Colombian government has worked
closely with the United States to prosecute the war on drugs.

It has done so while constantly battling the so-called \"Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia\" (FARC). This group is no quaint band of
pseudo-revolutionaries. Simply put, it is a terrorist organization -- so
classified by both the European Union and the U.S. government -- and one
that receives a significant amount of its financing from the drug
cartels.

If the contents of a recently-seized computer once owned by Raul Reyes,
a FARC leader that Colombia recently killed, are verified as accurate,
the world would have incriminating evidence that Venezuela and Ecuador
have been clandestinely supporting the FARC.

Does America want to allow Hugo Chávez to remake the Andean region in
his image? While this matter is currently being investigated, it is
clear that Chávez and his allies are already destabilizing the region.
Both Ecuador and Venezuela, two of Colombia\'s biggest trading partners,
have brought trade between them and Colombia to a virtual standstill.

Colombia is at a crossroads; it is literally besieged on all sides. As
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in September, \"If the U.S.
turns its back on its friends in Colombia, this will set back our cause
far more than any Latin American dictator could hope to achieve\"

While I understand that some have concerns about the level of violence
in Colombia against union members, I urge those skeptical of the FTA to
consider three important points:

\- Thanks to a renewed effort by the Colombian government to crack down
on labor violence, violence against union members has sharply decreased,
dropping from over 200 homicides in 2001 to 26 in 2007.

\- The Colombian government is investing nearly \$40 million in a
protection program that has nearly 2,000 union members enlisted.

\- Consider how much worse things would be in Colombia if we did not
stand with our ally, and allowed destabilization to occur in the Andean
region. A recent editorial in the Bogotá newspaper El Espectador
accurately stated, \"Blocking a tool like the free trade agreement,
which seeks to foment development, does not seem like the best mechanism
for defending Colombian trade unionists.\"

Now is the time for our leaders to show leadership and make a decision
based on the overwhelming arguments in favor of this agreement.

*Mr. Baker was Secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush.*

**The Colombia Trade Stakes**

By CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

April 7, 2008

It is not every day that our government, with one bold stroke, could
strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. workers; support a democratic
ally on the cusp of achieving lasting national success; weaken those who
would sow instability and autocracy in our hemisphere; and send an
unequivocal signal to the entire world that the United States is a
confident, capable global leader that acts not only in its own interest,
but in the interest of its friends.

All of this is what we can gain if Congress approves the free trade
agreement that our administration has negotiated with Colombia. We have
had ample time for deliberation. Soon it will be time for a decision.

With courage and sacrifice, Colombians have taken their nation from the
verge of failure to the brink of peace and prosperity in little more
than a decade. The U.S. has been with them every step of the way. With
our sustained bipartisan support, begun by President Clinton and
Congress in the 1990s and expanded by President Bush and Congress since
2001, Colombia\'s democratic government and its people have reclaimed
their country from the FARC -- a narco-terrorist group that, disturbing
new information suggests, has been receiving assistance from beyond
Colombia\'s borders.

Today, as war has given way to growing security, Colombians who once
fled their homes in fear are returning by the thousands. Democratic
institutions and the rule of law are growing stronger and more
inclusive. Unemployment and poverty are at their lowest levels in over a
decade and a growing economy is creating good jobs for Colombians in
their own country. In short, Colombia is becoming a normal nation again.

In February, I saw some of this progress firsthand when I visited
Medellin with nine Democratic members of Congress. Once the murder
capital of the world and the home of Pablo Escobar, Medellin today is a
place of safer neighborhoods, thriving businesses and a palpable hope
that pervades the city. Medellin is but one reflection of the brave and
difficult decisions that Colombia\'s government is making nationwide.
Passing the free trade agreement would reinforce these good decisions
and enable Colombia to expand prosperity and social justice to more of
its people.

Colombia\'s transformation to an increasingly stable and prosperous
democracy is one of the world\'s great victories for human rights.
Still, this progress has been accompanied by violent crimes, including
the murder of labor leaders and other innocent people. This is
unacceptable to us and it is unacceptable to President Alvaro Uribe,
whose government is working to bring the guilty to justice and to
protect all Colombians. Since 2002, the murder of trade unionists has
fallen by nearly 80%. But as President Uribe has rightly said, when it
comes to murders and crimes against innocent Colombians, his goal is
\"zero.\"

Colombia is a functioning democracy. The fact that our friend remains
imperfect, and that it still faces overwhelming challenges, should lead
us not to withdraw our support, but to increase it -- to help
Colombia\'s legal and democratic institutions function more accountably,
more effectively and more transparently. And that is exactly what this
trade agreement would do.

This agreement is also a far better deal for U.S. workers than the one
they have now. At present, more than 90% of Colombian goods enter the
U.S. duty-free, while our exports to Colombia face tariffs of up to 35%.
This agreement would level the playing field for U.S. workers, enabling
them to send the products of their labor to Colombia on the same terms
that Colombians now send theirs to us. The result, according to the U.S.
International Trade Commission, would be an annual increase of
approximately \$1.1 billion in U.S. exports to Colombia.

Beyond our economic interests, this agreement will also further our
national interest in a free and peaceful hemisphere. Some in the
Americas today want to shove the region toward authoritarianism. This
system has failed before, and it will fail again. The only question is
how much harm it will cause in the meantime, and in large part that
depends on us -- on whether we support the vast majority of people in
the Americas today who believe, as we do, that security and social
justice are best achieved through liberty and the rule of law, free and
fair trade, and responsible democratic governance. Colombia shares these
values, and we have invested billions of dollars in our ally\'s success.
How could we possibly retreat now?

The fate of this agreement raises even larger questions: How does the
U.S. treat its friends, especially when they are under pressure and
attack? Will we remain engaged as a global leader or will we pull back
unilaterally? Will we define our role in the world by confidence in our
own principles or by capitulation to unfounded fears? The eyes of many
nations, particularly those in our own hemisphere, are upon us, and let
no one think that the choices we make will not echo around the globe.

For more than a decade, U.S. policy toward Colombia has clearly
demonstrated that Republicans and Democrats can work together, elevate
the national interest above partisan politics and sustain an effective
strategy to achieve critical long-term goals. It is now time to write
the next chapter in this venerable bipartisan story. We must approve
this free trade agreement with Colombia -- for the sake of both of our
peoples\' success.

*Ms. Rice is U.S. secretary of state.*

**Our Free-Trade Consensus**

By KENNETH DUBERSTEIN and THOMAS F. MCLARTY, III

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

April 4, 2008

It may seem odd during an election year to find two former White House
chiefs of staff -- one Democrat and another Republican -- jointly
penning an op-ed. But there is at least one thing we agree on, and that
is the need to restore a bipartisan consensus in favor of free trade.

Last May, the administration and Congress achieved an important
breakthrough on the treatment of labor and environmental issues in
bilateral free trade agreements. This deal, negotiated in good faith by
respected leaders from both parties, gave hope to those of us who
believe America\'s future prosperity depends on active engagement in the
global economy.

Yet today, the deal is being put to the test by the U.S.-Colombia Free
Trade Agreement (FTA) now ready to be considered by Congress. Not only
are economic gains at stake; there are also important political and
strategic interests to consider.

On the trade front, it is important to understand that, as Under
Secretary of Commerce Chris Padilla has said, the U.S. already has free
trade with Colombia -- but it\'s \"one-way free trade.\" Thanks to the
Andean Trade Preferences Act, which Congress passed 16 years ago,
Colombian exporters pay tariffs on only 8% of the goods they send to the
U.S. Meanwhile, U.S. exporters currently pay tariffs -- some as high as
35% \-- on 97% of the products we sell Colombia.

The U.S.-Colombia FTA would level this uneven playing field, eliminating
the tariffs on U.S. goods and creating new market access for U.S.
service suppliers. And it would do all of this with a major trading
partner. The U.S. exports more to Colombia than Russia, even though
Russia has a population that is three times larger and an economy seven
times that of Colombia.

Under the agreement now before Congress, U.S. exports to Colombia, from
cars to chemicals to consumer products, would grow by an estimated \$1
billion per year -- a direct benefit to U.S. workers and their families.
From Colombia\'s perspective, the FTA would add a welcome dimension of
certainty to our trading relationship, encouraging investors to commit
to Colombia and help create jobs there, too.

In addition, the agreement would send an important signal of support to
a close neighbor, friend and ally. Over the past 10 years, Colombia has
made tremendous political and economic progress, and great strides in
turning back the tide of narco-terrorism that threatened the region\'s
stability. The U.S. has been a key partner in that effort -- beginning
with the Clinton administration\'s 1999 aid plan, which continues as
Plan Colombia. The results are impressive. Roughly 30,000 paramilitary
fighters have been demobilized. Terrorist attacks, kidnappings and
homicides in Colombia have plummeted over the past several years. A
decade ago, residents of Medellin -- the center of the drug trade in
Colombia -- would not visit their local plaza without armed bodyguards.
Today, parents and children enjoy the city\'s plazas and parks without
fear.

To be sure, there still is work to be done. While Colombian President
Alvaro Uribe has taken significant steps to protect trade unionists, for
example, violence persists against labor leaders. But as the many
Colombian unions that support the trade agreement know, rejecting the
agreement will not save a single life -- whereas passing it will be a
powerful vote of confidence in the democracy Colombians have struggled
so hard to protect. The regional role of Colombia as an enduring
democracy, working in partnership with the U.S., is a powerful signal to
neighboring countries as well.

Both presidents we were privileged to serve were committed to security
in the Western Hemisphere and to opening new markets to goods through
free trade. For instance, both presidents signed important trade
agreements that opened new markets abroad -- including the U.S.-Canada
Free Trade Agreement in the last year of Ronald Reagan\'s presidency and
the North American Free Trade Agreement in the first year of Bill
Clinton\'s. Likewise, both believed that the security of our Latin
American neighbors was important to our own national security. They
invested much in ensuring that democracy and economic freedom took root
and grew in Latin America.

The U.S.-Colombia FTA merits bipartisan support. We also believe that
restoring a durable bipartisan consensus on trade requires our leaders
to work harder at ensuring that no one gets left behind.

Exports accounted for 40% of America\'s economic growth in 2007; trade
creates jobs, higher wages and lower prices in aggregate terms. Yet
people don\'t live their lives in the aggregate -- they live as
individuals. The skies may look bright at 40,000 feet, but that\'s no
help to someone struggling to make ends meet on the ground.

That\'s why those of us who believe in the power of open markets, and
who want to see closer ties of trade and investment around the world,
need to do more to help workers, families and communities adapt to
change. The more we can do to soften trade\'s blows, the easier it will
be to spotlight trade\'s benefits -- which, in the case of the
U.S.-Colombia FTA, are substantial and deserve our support.

*Mr. Duberstein was a White House chief of staff for President Ronald
Reagan. Mr. McLarty was a White House chief of staff for President Bill
Clinton.*

**Free Colombia**

**A trade pact everyone can love**

Washington Post Editorial

March 31, 2008

SOMETIME AFTER Congress returns from Easter recess this week, President
Bush is likely to present the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement for the
approval of the House and Senate. As we have said, the proposed pact is
good policy for both Colombia and the United States. Colombia has long
enjoyed periodically renewable tariff-free access to the U.S. market;
the agreement would make that permanent. In exchange, U.S. producers
would, for the first time, get the same tariff-free deal when they
export to Colombia. Meanwhile, the agreement contains labor and
environmental protections much like those that Congress has already
approved in a U.S.-Peru trade pact. A vote for the Colombia deal would
show Latin America that a staunch U.S. ally will be rewarded for
improving its human rights record and resisting the anti-American
populism of Venezuela\'s Hugo ChÂ¿vez.

Sending the agreement to the House of Representatives without the prior
approval of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would be risky for the
president; usually, the executive and legislative branches tee up such
votes cooperatively. But months of Democratic resistance to the Colombia
deal may have left Mr. Bush no choice. The agreement is being held
hostage by members of the House (and Senate) who argue that Colombia \--
despite a dramatic drop in its overall murder toll under the leadership
of President Â¿lvaro Uribe \-- hasn\'t done enough to protect trade
union activists or to punish past murders of labor leaders. It\'s a
spurious complaint: Actually, in 2006, union members were slightly less
likely than the average Colombian to be murdered. But the human rights
issue has served as cover for many Democrats whose true objections are
to free trade itself.

Once the agreement arrives on the Hill, Congress will have 90
legislative days to vote yes or no \-- no amendments and no filibusters
allowed, because special \"fast track\" rules apply. The Bush
administration is betting that enough Democrats would support the pact
to ensure its passage in the House, if it ever comes up for a vote. Of
course, Ms. Pelosi could make an issue of the president\'s failure to
get her approval to submit the pact and then could have her caucus shoot
down the deal. But she could also engage the White House in serious
negotiations. The president has signaled a willingness to consider
reauthorizing aid for workers displaced by trade, legislation that is
dear to the Democrats\' labor constituency and that he has heretofore
resisted.

Ms. Pelosi recently said that no Colombia deal could pass without trade
adjustment assistance \-- without also mentioning the bogus trade
unionists issue. Perhaps she is realizing that talking to Mr. Bush about
swapping a Colombia vote for trade adjustment assistance might actually
lead to a tangible accomplishment. At least we have to hope so.

**Approve pact with Colombia**

**FARC is losing ground and hostage negotiations are on. Congress should
approve a trade deal with the country.**

Los Angeles Times Editorial

April 8, 2008

Colombia is positioned to enter its most peaceful and prosperous era in
decades. At home, the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or
FARC, is losing its long war against the government; in the U.S., a
free-trade pact awaits approval from Congress. American actions in the
next weeks will help determine whether Colombia\'s political and
economic opportunities gather momentum or falter.

Under pressure from human rights and labor organizations, Colombia has
done what Democrats in Congress have urged: improved the country\'s
dismal labor record. Certainly more progress must be made \-- Colombia
still leads the world in murders of union organizers \-- but President
Alvaro Uribe\'s government has reduced the number significantly and
shown that it\'s on the right track. Now the U.S. must demonstrate faith
in an ally \-- faith that its reforms are not solely the product of
political pressure from the north, and that the people of Colombia and
the government are equally committed to a more just society. Congress
should approve the trade pact.

This juncture presents opportunities for both countries. Battered and
demoralized, the FARC is under intense international pressure to release
its hostages: Franco-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt, three American
military contractors and hundreds of Colombians. The United States\'
hands-off policy has been fruitless; now is the time to actively work
for the release of Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell and Thomas Howes. New
Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has visited Uribe to discuss the crisis, and
given his history of successful hostage negotiations, his standing as a
special envoy of the Organization of American States and his connections
in Latin America, he\'s a logical choice as mediator.

A peaceful resolution to the hostage crisis will also improve the
region\'s political landscape. Colombia\'s recent incursion into
Ecuador, where it attacked a FARC camp, won Uribe tremendous support at
home but strained relations with its neighbors. Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez, who is ideologically aligned with the rebels, has exploited
this anxious moment, and the Bush administration\'s neglect has only
helped to tilt South America hard left. This is why it is crucial for
the U.S. to act decisively on the trade agreement and the FARC. Freeing
hostages and opening trade are both in Colombia\'s interests; those are
interests we share and should advance.

**Our view on free trade: Pass the Colombia pact**

**Democrats pander to Big Labor, flirt with return to protectionism.**

USA Today Editorial

April 9, 2008

As they work their way through gritty blue-collar states, Democratic
presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have each had
what might best be called \"trade moments.\"

As they work their way through gritty blue-collar states, Democratic
presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have each had
what might best be called \"trade moments.\"

Obama was embarrassed after an aide told the Canadian government that
Obama wasn\'t really serious about renegotiating the North American Free
Trade Agreement. And Clinton pushed aside her top strategist, Mark Penn,
whose day job as public relations executive led him to promote a trade
pact with Colombia that the candidate opposes.

These episodes have been dissected as gaffes, tactical errors or, in
Penn\'s case, conflicts of interest. What they really are is evidence of
the candidates\' willingness to pander on free trade --- and their
party\'s growing willingness to accept the labor movement\'s defeatist
anti-trade positions.

There is no compelling reason to reopen NAFTA, or to think that the
United States could do any better on second effort. The addition of more
than 30 million U.S. jobs since it went into effect in 1994 makes it
hard to argue it has been bad for the nation.

Nor is there a good reason why Obama, Clinton and other leading
Democrats should oppose a proposed free trade agreement with Colombia,
set for a vote this year, considering that:

\* Colombia would get nothing from it other than the permanent extension
of the status quo. That\'s because most of its products already come
into this country duty-free thanks to a decision two decades ago to
promote legitimate businesses in an Andean region rife with cocaine.

\* Most U.S. exporters to Colombia would see their tariffs, now ranging
from 7% to 80%, slashed to zero. For a company such as Illinois-based
Caterpillar, a major exporter to Colombia, that could mean a \$200,000
savings on a piece of heavy equipment.

\* The government of Colombia is a solid ally and a counterweight to
Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. It has accepted decades of American
arguments that free markets and trade are the best engines of growth and
antidotes to extremism.

Labor leaders point to violence against union workers as a justification
to delay a deal indefinitely. This is a red herring. Colombia is an
unusually violent place --- because of everything from criminals to drug
cartels and the Marxist terror group known as FARC --- but evidence that
union members are victimized more than others is thin.

That the Colombia deal might be in trouble shows how Democrats have been
worn down by years of facile anti-trade arguments. With free-trader John
McCain atop the Republican ticket, the two parties arguably are further
apart on trade now than at any moment since 1932.

The irony is that back then, their roles were reversed, with Republican
Herbert Hoover pushing high tariffs and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt
opposing them. Roosevelt won in a landslide, and world trade became a
vital part of the nation\'s economic growth for decades to come. That is
something the Democrats, currently focused on short-term campaign
tactics, should think about as they flirt with protectionism.

**Colombia and Cat**

Wall Street Journal Editorial

April 9, 2008

President Bush sent the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement to Congress
on Tuesday, and Democratic leaders greeted it with a Bronx cheer. No
surprise there. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has been promising that
the deal won\'t pass, and we\'re guessing his confidence has something
to do with Big Labor\'s contributions to the Democratic Party in an
election year.

But if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi\'s anti-Colombia motivations are easy
to divine, Mr. Sweeney\'s are more puzzling. Union leaders like to say
they\'re looking out for the well-being of the rank and file. But by
quashing the Colombia FTA, Mr. Sweeney would weaken the competitiveness
of American manufacturing and put some of America\'s best-paying union
jobs at risk. These are jobs that exist today but could well be gone if
Congress rejects this market opening in South America.

Exhibit A are 8,600 jobs at two Caterpillar Inc. factories in Illinois.
Caterpillar exports more to Peru and Colombia than it does to Germany,
Japan or the United Kingdom. So keeping and growing market share in both
countries is important to union members in both plants. Not all are
union jobs but both facilities are United Auto Worker shops.

Consider exports of the off-highway truck, made in Decatur. Customers in
Colombia now pay a 15% tariff -- equal to \$200,000 -- on the import of
these vehicles. If the FTA goes through, that import tariff goes to zero
immediately. Conversely, if the deal dies and Colombia, which is trying
to expand its world trade, strikes an agreement with another country
where similar vehicles are made, U.S. exports will immediately be at a
15% price disadvantage.

Colombia also has a large mining industry, and there are more Cat D-11
bulldozers in Colombian coal mines today than in any other country in
the world. Those bulldozers are made in East Peoria. Colombian customers
pay a 5% duty to import Cat bulldozers, which compete against Komatsu
bulldozers made in Japan. Union members might ask Mr. Sweeney why he
wants to spurn an offer that would give U.S. products a 5% price edge
against Japanese competition.

Caterpillar -- which has a total U.S. work force of 50,545 -- faces an
even more imminent threat in the case of its motor graders, a piece of
heavy equipment used to level the playing field, literally. A company
called Champion also makes motor graders in Canada, and Colombia is also
negotiating an FTA with Canada. If Canada seals a deal with Colombia
while the U.S. walks away from its Colombia pact, graders made in the
U.S. will cost more than those made in Canada. Once again, Mr.
Sweeney\'s agenda makes the U.S. work force less competitive.

The AFL-CIO\'s rejectionism makes even less sense when you consider that
92% of Colombian goods coming to the U.S. now enter the American market
duty-free under the Andean Trade Preferences Act, or ATPA. In June 2007,
365 members of Congress voted to renew the ATPA and thereby maintain
open U.S. markets for Colombian products. The FTA is a chance to open
Colombian markets to U.S. goods and services. Killing it is like saying
that we want U.S. products going to Colombia to be heavily taxed. Even
for a trade protectionist like Mr. Sweeney, that makes no sense. For
American workers, it\'s crazy.

**Drop Dead, Colombia**

**Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocks a trade deal with America\'s
closest South American ally.**

Washington Post Editorial

April 10, 2008

THE YEAR 2008 may enter history as the time when the Democratic Party
lost its way on trade. Already, the party\'s presidential candidates
have engaged in an unseemly contest to adopt the most protectionist
posture, suggesting that, if elected, they might pull out of the North
American Free Trade Agreement. Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
declared her intention to change the procedural rules governing the
proposed trade promotion agreement with Colombia. President Bush
submitted the pact to Congress on Tuesday for a vote within the next 90
legislative days, as required by the \"fast-track\" authority under
which the U.S. negotiated the deal with Colombia. Ms. Pelosi says
she\'ll ask the House to undo that rule.

The likely result is no vote on the agreement this year. Ms. Pelosi
denies that her intent is to kill the bill, insisting yesterday that
Congress simply needs more time to consider it \"in light of the
economic uncertainty in our country.\" She claimed that she feared that,
\"if brought to the floor immediately, \[the pact\] would lose. And what
message would that send?\" But Ms. Pelosi\'s decision-making process
also included a fair component of pure Washington pique: She accused Mr.
Bush of \"usurp\[ing\] the discretion of the speaker of the House\" to
schedule legislation.

That political turf-staking, and the Democrats\' decreasingly credible
claims of a death-squad campaign against Colombia\'s trade unionists,
constitutes all that\'s left of the case against the agreement.
Economically, it should be a no-brainer \-- especially at a time of
rising U.S. joblessness. At the moment, Colombian exports to the United
States already enjoy preferences. The trade agreement would make those
permanent, but it would also give U.S. firms free access to Colombia for
the first time, thus creating U.S. jobs. Politically, too, the agreement
is in the American interest, as a reward to a friendly, democratic
government that has made tremendous strides on human rights, despite
harassment from Venezuela\'s Hugo Chávez.

To be sure, President Bush provoked Ms. Pelosi. But he forced the issue
only after months of inconclusive dickering convinced him that Democrats
were determined to avoid a vote that would force them to accept
accountability for opposing an agreement that is manifestly in
America\'s interest. It turns out his suspicions were correct.

\"I take this action with deep respect to the people of Colombia and
will be sure that any message they receive is one of respect for their
country, and the importance of the friendship between our two
countries,\" Ms. Pelosi protested yesterday. Perhaps Colombia\'s
government and people will understand. We don\'t.

**Pelosi\'s Bad Faith**

Wall Street Journal Editorial

April 10, 2008

The Democratic Party\'s protectionist make-over was completed yesterday,
when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her
objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with
politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage
the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best
ally in Latin America.

 

The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to
accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental
standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and
further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic
unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress.
Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way.

So on Monday, President Bush submitted the bill to Congress over liberal
protests, which, under a bargain between Congress and the White House
for trade promotion authority, mandated an up-or-down vote within 90
days. Today Ms. Pelosi will make an ex post facto change to House rules
to avoid the required vote, withdrawing from the timetable and thus
relegating the Colombia deal to a perhaps permanent limbo.

Democrats say it would have failed anyway, but at least a vote during
the next three months would have forced them to show the courage of
their protectionist convictions. Instead, they chose to shelve the bill
in an election year while paying off organized labor and other antitrade
yahoos. The gambit is especially humiliating for Ways and Means Chairman
Charlie Rangel, a free-trader who has been trying to strike a deal with
the Administration but keeps getting rolled by Ms. Pelosi.

 

For good measure, the double-cross dismantles the only process that
allows any Administration to conduct good-faith negotiations with
foreign nations. No one is going to take the U.S. at its word if
Congress is going to change the rules when it has second thoughts and
renege.

The latest Democratic objection is that Bogotá isn\'t doing enough to
protect labor activists. But the murders of trade unionists have fallen
by almost 80% since 2002, in part because of special protection
programs, and Colombian President Álvaro Uribe has reduced other
violence by nearly every measure, particularly against
narco-traffickers. But any excuse will do. Yesterday Ms. Pelosi said the
bill would harm \"the economic concerns of America\'s working
families.\" Yet over 90% of Colombian imports enter the U.S. duty-free,
while the agreement would open the Colombian market to American goods
that face tariffs as high as 35%.

Even if the free trade agreement is somehow removed from cold storage,
Ms. Pelosi\'s cheating is a first-order strategic blunder. Colombia is
one of America\'s closest friends in a hostile region menaced by Hugo
Chávez\'s Venezuela. For all the talk of repairing the U.S. \"image\" in
the world, the Democrats don\'t really mind harming that image if it
pleases the AFL-CIO.

**Yes to free trade**

THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL

April 10, 2008

With time running out on this year\'s legislative calendar, President
Bush has sent the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to Congress. The trade
deal deserves to be approved for four very big reasons. First, the trade
pact effectively levels the playing field by providing much greater
benefits to U.S. exporters, which face high tariffs, than it gives to
Colombia, whose products already arrive in the United States with very
few restrictions. Second, in a South American region that has moved
decidedly leftward in recent years --- e.g., Venezuela, Bolivia and
Ecuador --- Colombia remains our strongest ally on the continent. Third,
with an expanding economy and a population of 44 million, Colombia has
South America\'s second-largest number of consumers whose demand for
unrestricted U.S. industrial, farm and consumer products offers great
potential for U.S. firms and workers. Fourth, Colombia has indisputably
made great strides in recent years on the economic- and political-reform
fronts; in its efforts to demobilize paramilitary forces; and in its
battle against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC, an
internationally designated terrorist organization and narco-trafficking
syndicate). Under the brave, competent leadership of President Alvaro
Uribe, Colombia deserves to become a free-trade partner of the United
States.

The trade agreement was signed 16 months ago. It was later revised in
accordance with Democratic demands that more stringent labor and
environmental standards be added. Under the terms of the Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA) process, Congress has 90 legislative days to conduct
up-or-down votes without adding amendments. However, the Colombia trade
deal, which may become the first trade agreement that Congress has ever
rejected, is strongly opposed by the Democratic congressional
leadership, which is threatening to delay consideration of the trade
pact.

The economic benefits are clear. Colombia has enjoyed preferential-trade
access to the U.S. market since 1991. Today more than 90 percent of its
exports arrive in the United States duty-free. Colombia wants the
free-trade agreement because it would make this preferential-trade
access permanent. Tariffs up to 35 percent currently apply to U.S.
industrial and consumer products exported to Colombia; many U.S.
agricultural products face tariffs above 80 percent. The free-trade
agreement would immediately eliminate tariffs on 80 percent of
industrial and consumer products exported to Colombia. Eventually, 100
percent of U.S. exports would enter Colombia\'s large and growing market
duty-free.

Democrats, U.S. labor leaders and others, including this page, are
rightly concerned about the labor activists who have been murdered
during the past 20 years in Colombia. Under Mr. Uribe, however, who
became president in 2002, violence against labor activists has plunged.
Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez, the increasingly authoritarian, anti-American
president of Venezuela, continues to support the murderous FARC. As
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Halper recently observed: \"If the U.S.
turns its back on its friends in Colombia, this will set back our cause
far more than any Latin American dictator could hope to achieve.\"

**Time for the Colombian Trade Pact**

New York Times Editorial

April 12, 2008

American workers are understandably anxious. Their incomes went nowhere
through six years of economic growth. Many are losing their jobs as the
economy slips into recession. Yet concern about workers' plight should
not lead Congressional Democrats to reject the trade agreement with
Colombia. This deal would benefit the American economy and further the
nation's broader interests in Latin America.

It is time for Congress to ratify it.

The trade pact would produce clear benefits for American businesses and
their workers. Most Colombian exports are exempt from United States'
tariffs. American exports, however, face high Colombian tariffs and
would benefit as the so-called trade promotion agreement brought them
down to zero.

The deal also would strengthen the institutional bonds tying the United
States to Colombia, one of America's few allies in an important region
that has become increasingly hostile to the United States' interests.
Perhaps most important, the deal would provide a tool for Colombia's
development, drawing investment and helping the nation extricate itself
from the mire of poverty that provides sustenance to drug trafficking
and a bloody insurgency.

Violence in Colombia is way too high. We remain very concerned over the
killing of trade unionists by right-wing paramilitary groups. Last year,
we advised Congress not to ratify the trade agreement until Colombia
demonstrated progress in investigating the murders and prosecuting and
convicting their perpetrators.

Though by no means ideal, the situation today has improved. Thirty-nine
trade unionists were killed last year, down from 197 in 2001, the year
before the government of Álvaro Uribe came to office. Prosecutors
obtained 36 convictions for the murder of trade unionists --- up from 11
in 2006 and only one in 2001. The budget of the prosecutor general's
office has increased every year. Last year, it created a special unit to
prosecute labor murders that has obtained 13 sentences.

Pressure from the United States Congress has contributed to this
progress, nudging the Colombian government with its offer that gains on
the human rights front would lead to ratification of the trade
agreement. Washington must sustain the pressure to ensure the energetic
prosecution of crimes by paramilitary thugs and further reduce violence
against union members. It has a powerful tool to do so: about \$600
million a year in mostly military aid for Colombia to combat drug
trafficking. The money must be approved by Congress every year.

Rejecting or putting on ice the trade agreement would reduce the United
States' credibility and leverage in Colombia and beyond. In a letter
last year to Congressional Democrats, a group of Democratic heavyweights
from the Clinton administration and previous Congresses wrote: "Walking
away from the Colombia trade agreement or postponing it until conditions
are perfect would send an unambiguous signal to our friends and
opponents alike that the United States is an unreliable partner without
a vision for cooperation in our hemisphere." It would serve human rights
in Colombia no good.

Unfortunately, the agreement has become entangled in political jockeying
between the White House and Democrats. The Democrats are right to demand
assistance for American workers, and the Bush administration should work
with Congress to expand the safety net for workers displaced by
globalization. But this should not stop the Colombian trade pact from
coming to fruition.

**FORUM: A partner in Colombia**

By Harold McGraw III

Washington Times Op-Ed

April 12, 2008

In recent years, free trade agreements have proven to be valuable
drivers of America\'s economic growth - lowering tariffs, increasing
market access and improving trading rules for United States\' products
and services. The proposed U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement
offers an especially compelling opportunity to bolster our economy,
while sending an important signal to a vital U.S. ally.

The agreement is now in the hands of Congress, and it has the
opportunity to show the world that America will not turn inward.
Decisive, bipartisan action by Congress would help strengthen American
competitiveness, support political and social progress in Colombia and
democracy in the region, and improve our standing on a continent that
has long been victimized by totalitarian regimes and anemic growth.

Foreign investors have seen what I have seen in my own interactions with
Colombia\'s popular, democratically elected president, Alvaro Uribe:
economic and political policies that are pro-business, pro-democracy and
that uphold the rule of law. These policies have created one of the most
vibrant economies in Latin America and the biggest market for U.S.
agricultural exports in the region, yielding investments that fueled
Colombia\'s remarkable 6.6 percent economic growth rate in 2007 and
resulting in a fourteen-fold gain in the Colombian stock market since
October 2001.

Colombia has prudently established free trade agreements with several
key countries in the Western Hemisphere, but not with the U.S. In
contrast, the goods and services of thousands of U.S. companies - and
the many thousands of men and women they employ - that currently export
to Colombia are penalized with high tariffs and other restrictive
barriers. The U.S.-Colombia agreement would immediately eliminate these
onerous tariffs on 80 percent of all U.S. consumer and industrial
exports, as well as eliminate a host of other barriers to trade,
enabling these U.S. companies for the first time to compete in the
region on a level playing field.

An accord with Colombia would offer more than just economic benefits to
America. Passage of the agreement would encourage a friendly democracy
and improve our standing in the region. After the recent turmoil caused
by hostile troops from Venezuela and Ecuador gathering on Colombia\'s
borders, there has never been a better time to send a clear message to
pro-democratic forces throughout Latin America that the U.S. stands with
nations like Colombia in support of economic, political and human rights
reforms.

Despite the clear and inarguable benefits of a U.S.-Colombia Trade
Promotion Agreement, some Americans remain fearful of free trade and,
more broadly, international engagement, and would choose to isolate the
U.S. economy from the world. Doing so would be more than bad foreign
policy; it would be bad business. Free trade provides access to
previously closed markets, which in turn leads to increased
opportunities for America\'s companies and their workers and increases
American competitiveness. For example:

• Exports to our NAFTA partners have doubled since passage of the
agreement in 1993.

• The U.S.-Chile agreement has more than tripled U.S. exports to Chile
since its passage.

• U.S. exports to Jordan have increased 90 percent since passage of the
US-Jordan agreement in 2001.

International trade has never been more important to the U.S. economy.
Forty years ago, it was just a drop in the bucket. Over the last decade,
exports have accounted for approximately 30 percent of U.S. economic
growth. In 1992, one in 10 Americans had a job involving international
trade. Today, it is nearly one in five.

Access to overseas markets is critical to our economic vitality, but if
we are to continue to reap the benefits of international trade, we need
to act quickly. The U.S. is falling behind globally when it comes to
opening markets to our goods and services. Today, we are active in only
ten of the world\'s 300 free trade agreements. The European Union now
has more than double the number of agreements as the U.S.; Japan, China
and India are outpacing us as well. Without strong engagement in the
international marketplace, the U.S. is handing critical overseas
opportunities to foreign competitors. If we allow these trends to
continue, we will undermine the American worker.

While the presidential campaigns traverse the country and dominate the
headlines, our elected officials in Washington must remain focused on
the matters at hand - and few are more important than the passage of the
U.S.-Colombia agreement. Every day it is not passed is another day of
lost opportunities for American companies and workers. By passing the
Colombia accord now, America has a rare opportunity to show the world
that good trade policy and good foreign policy go hand-in-hand.

*Harold McGraw III is chairman of Business Roundtable, chairman of the
Emergency Committee for American Trade and chairman, president and CEO
of McGraw-Hill Cos.*

**Pelosi plays politics**

**She\'s doing right by her party by blocking the Colombia trade pact.
But it\'s the wrong thing for the country.**

Los Angeles Times Editorial

April 12, 2008

In finagling House rules to block a vote on a free trade agreement with
Colombia, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has done well by her
party. The pact is opposed by unions and therefore is opposed by both
Democratic presidential candidates, who are courting labor votes. But
because its economic benefits are plain, a vote would force Sens. Barack
Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York to choose
between politics and the national interest. Pelosi\'s solution: stall.

That\'s not her stated reason, of course. Instead, she and other critics
of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement claim, for instance, that it would
further damage the U.S. economy. Nonsense. The economy is teetering
because of a meltdown in the housing market, a credit squeeze that
hampers business growth and a pullback by consumers that weakens
retailers. Increasing exports of beef and frozen French fries to Bogota
will not drive more sub-prime borrowers into foreclosure in Boise.

To the contrary, the agreement creates balance in a policy that is
lopsided. Most of Colombia\'s exports to the U.S. are not subject to
tariffs, while U.S. goods face taxes of up to 35%. Reducing tariffs in
both countries is good for Colombia, but it\'s even better for the U.S.
\-- and, we might add, especially critical in Pelosi\'s home state.

Another argument is that Colombia remains a dangerous place for union
organizers, and it should not be rewarded until it can ensure their
safety. This is a valid concern, but Colombia has made real progress: It
has instituted special protections for union organizers, created an
office in its department of justice to reduce the backlog of murder
cases and stepped up the pace of criminal convictions.

Halting the vote wasn\'t about the U.S. economy and it wasn\'t about
Colombia. It was politics. That\'s to be expected from Washington in an
election year, but Pelosi\'s partisan considerations should not override
her national duty. She should schedule a vote on the agreement, and
Congress should approve it.

**Unions for Free Trade**

By MARY ANASTASIA O\'GRADY

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

April 14, 2008

In the bid for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi\'s support for the
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, Gustavo Palacio was no match for
John Sweeney.

Mr. Sweeney, the protectionist president of the AFL-CIO, opposes the
FTA. Mr. Palacio, a Colombian labor leader in a region that was a
killing field until President Álvaro Uribe took office in 2002, wants
the trade deal to go through.

 

Last week I met with Mr. Palacio, the leader of a miners union, and
eight other labor leaders, who had traveled here to speak on Capitol
Hill about the importance of the FTA in the struggle against poverty and
violence in their country. They represent industrial unions, which,
unlike the dominant public-sector unions in Colombia, are not aligned
with hard-left politics. On Wednesday, in the middle of their visit,
Mrs. Pelosi announced that she would stuff the FTA in the freezer,
ensuring it cannot come up for a vote without her approval. Perhaps she
put it next to her conscience, which also seems to be in cold storage
during this election year.

Poverty warriors in the U.S. and Colombia are stinging from Mrs.
Pelosi\'s dirty trick. But it is not the end of history; there is
another chapter to write, and in it, Mr. Palacio and millions of
Colombians struggling for a better life will overcome the barriers put
in their path by American politicians.

The anti-FTA case in the U.S. has been built on two pillars of
propaganda. The first is that under Mr. Uribe\'s leadership, labor
unions have suffered disproportionately as a target of assassins. This
is false. Murders of labor activists have been reduced sharply under Mr.
Uribe, from 196 the year he took office to 26 last year.

Why were unionists getting murdered at such a high rate prior to Mr.
Uribe\'s presidency? In part it had to do with the historical ties
between some of the dominant public-sector unions and Colombia\'s hard
left. These organizations have their roots in an anti-American,
antidemocratic, antimarket ideology shared with the country\'s
Castro-backed insurgents. Tragically, this has put the dominant unions
on the left side of Colombia\'s violent politics for decades. Those who
took up weapons to fight guerrilla aggression have been on the other
side of the conflict.

 THE AMERICAS IN THE NEWS

 

Get the latest information in Spanish from The Wall Street Journal\'s
Americas page1.Thousands of civilians, not just left-wing labor
activists, have been killed in Colombian violence over several decades
and it is not over. One of the union leaders I met with last week is new
to his job. His predecessor, who was pro-FTA, was murdered in November.

Even so, things are better than they have been in a long time, thanks to
Mr. Uribe. He\'s restored the state\'s law-enforcement role, and
increased the budget in the attorney general\'s office to prosecute
political crimes. He\'s also created a special security detail for union
activists. No Colombian president has done so much to protect organized
labor.

The second anti-FTA myth is that Colombia\'s largest unions, whose
leaders are opposed to trade, are representative of the country\'s work
force. It\'s true that the big unions represent 86% of all organized
labor, but total union membership accounts for just 4.5% of the
workforce. This is a decline from a decade ago when membership was 6% of
the work force.

The cause of this low rate, the visitors to Washington told me, is the
radicalized political agenda of the leadership in the large unions. It
can be summed up as \"down with the government, down with the
imperialists, down with the International Monetary Fund.\" This rhetoric
doesn\'t fly with most Colombians. They believe that, beyond the U.S.
appetite for traditional Colombian exports -- coffee, bananas, coal and
oil -- there is an opportunity to discover new U.S. markets that benefit
workers. In a letter to the AFL-CIO dated March 28, the group also
charged that the leaders of the large traditional unions are \"more
interested in achieving personal privileges than in working on behalf of
the workers.\"

 

It is for this reason that Mr. Palacio and the union leaders I talked
with last week want to form a new \"centralized trade union\" that will
be \"independent, democratic, pluralistic\" and search for \"harmonized
agreements\" with employers. They already represent workers in textiles,
utilities, the food and beverage industry, banana growing, metal
working, flowers, construction, shoes, confections and fruit growing, as
well as Mr. Palacio\'s miners. Their numbers are small but they believe
that they can recruit in the private sector -- where 90% of Colombian
workers are employed -- by offering an alternative to the status quo.
They are not afraid to support viewpoints that are shared by the
government or the companies.

One example is the FTA. Mr. Palacio says his union of 1,500 workers
supports the FTA for two reasons: security and investment. The state of
Antioquia, where Mr. Palacio works, has been somewhat pacified under Mr.
Uribe. But he says that, if the area hopes to keep the peace, it needs
jobs for young people. By bringing investment to the region, the FTA
will improve employment prospects. The agreement is also expected to
boost the overall wealth of the region, which means better social
services and infrastructure.

The other union leaders I talked with share this view. They see the FTA
as a tool to attract investors, improve working conditions, and provide
higher paying jobs. The former leader of a banana-workers union in
Antioquia told me that his former union backs the FTA because it will
mean that growers can import machinery, making life easier for workers.

Does any of this matter to the cynical Speaker? Not a bit. She has Mr.
Sweeney\'s backing for November and has stuck it to a U.S. ally in the
war on terror to boot. Perhaps if Bogóta had emulated say, Syria, in
opposing the Bush foreign policy, it would have a better chance with
Mrs. Pelosi.

**Democrats for Colombia**

Wall Street Journal Editorial

April 15, 2008

If nothing else, Speaker Nancy Pelosi\'s ploy last week to change House
rules in order to kill the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is exposing how
extreme her protectionism is. Yesterday, 35 former senior officials in
Democratic Administrations and Democratic Members of Congress signed an
open letter urging Congress to pass the Colombia pact.

\"We believe this Agreement is in both our vital national security and
economic interests,\" the letter says. \"We feel that the treaty should
be considered as soon as possible and that any obstacles be quickly and
amicably resolved.\" Good luck with that last point given Ms. Pelosi\'s
eagerness to take orders from the AFL-CIO.

But the men and woman who signed the letter are notable for their
prominence in the Clinton and Carter Administrations -- which is to say
when Democrats were still a free-trading party. The list includes
Bernard Aronson, former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American
Affairs, whose area of expertise included Colombia. There\'s also Donna
Shalala, former Secretary of HHS, plus Robert Pastor, former director
for Latin America on the National Security Council and nobody\'s idea of
a right-winger.

Also Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former Deputy Defense
Secretary John Hamre; former Congresspersons Lee Hamilton, Dan Glickman,
Patricia Schroeder, Steve Solarz, Sam Gibbons and Calvin Dooley, and
former Senators Robert Kerrey, Bob Graham and John Breaux.

Yes, we know: Former Members of Congress don\'t have to vote and face
the wrath of the Teamsters. But they do know the national interest, and
their three-page letter makes clear the damage Congress will do if it
defeats the Colombia FTA.

**Sabotaging Colombia**

By Helle Dale

Washington Times Op-Ed

April 16, 2008

With friends like these, who needs enemies? This thought might well have
presented itself to President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia in the last few
days, as he watched the recently negotiated free trade agreement with
the United States fall victim to American election politics. In a
hemisphere where strongman politics and authoritarian rule are
tenaciously making a comeback, the leadership of the Democratic Party
has just inflicted a severe blow on the reputation of the United States
as a reliable international partner and on U.S. trade policy as a whole.

How does the U.S. presidential election figure into the equation of free
trade with Colombia? It appears that congressional Democrats are fearful
of offending: 1) their two presidential candidates, both of whom are now
actively campaigning on anti-free trade platforms and 2) their
constituencies among the U.S. trade unions. Once the election is over,
some have suggested, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might overcome her
problems with the Colombian accord and allow Congress to vote in the
lame-duck session following the election.

This would be an extraordinarily cynical, high-stakes gamble. The danger
would be that were it to fail, the consequences could well be that the
next U.S. administration would not have time to take up the Colombia
trade deal in its first year in office (were the next White House
inclined to pursue free trade agreements at all), and Colombia would
probably go into its next presidential election in 2010 without an
agreement with the United States.

What specifically happened is that the Colombian free trade agreement
was negotiated under the terms of Trade Promotion Authority, which
provided for an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without the
potential for amendments. The TPA has now expired, but one of its
provisions was that the House and the Senate must vote on an agreement
within 90 days of it signing. On April 10, Mrs. Pelosi, however,
introduced a procedural change to House rules that circumvented the
90-day provision, thus leaving open the trade agreement to the slings
and arrows of special interests and their friends in Congress who do not
favor free trade.

Their ostensible reasons hark back to Colombia\'s troubled past, but do
not stand up to scrutiny today. Opponents of the free trade agreement
cite Colombia\'s violence by right-wing militias and murders of trade
union activists. The AFL-CIO cites 2,500 murders of trade unionists
since 1986, but fails to recognize that the vast majority happened
before 2001 the year before when Mr. Uribe came to power. By 2003, the
number of murders had come down to 100 and has been in decline since
then. Last year the number was 26.

The security issues that could be affected by the failure of a trade
agreement are wide-ranging. Proliferation through Iran is a persistent
concern throughout the region, as is arms smuggling and trafficking in
people. Narcotrafficking remains a constant battle in Colombia. And
poverty makes large populations vulnerable to disasters.

With a failed trade agreement as a festering problem and a public
diplomacy disaster, political relations suffer between the United States
and Colombia, making cooperation on security more difficult. A
successful agreement on the other hand would mean a stronger Colombian
economy, fortified by growing revenues from trade, which will better be
able to cope with the country\'s many security challenges, even when
money for Plan Colombia has dried up. In other words, trade undergirds
defense.

And of course there is always the troublemaker Venezuelan strongman Hugo
Chavez, who constantly seeks ways of inserting himself in other
countries\' business, last fall trying (unsuccessfully) to appear as a
\"mediator\" between the Colombian government and the FARC terrorists.
He has been joined by Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Rafael Correa in
Ecuador and the Kirchners in Argentina in fomenting populism through the
region.

President Bush has actually quietly assembled a solid record of trade
relations with Latin America with a free trade accord with Chile and
Peru, as well as the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The Bush
administration has also, through Plan Colombia, supported Mr. Uribe\'s
fight against the FARC and the narcoterrorism that has been a blight on
Colombia. A Colombian free trade agreement would be a crowning
achievement.

Abroad, however, the rap on the Bush administration has unfairly been
that it has been unilateralist and high-handed in its dealings with our
friends abroad. But look who is fitting that description today.

**Colombia\'s Case**

**The intellectual poverty of a free-trade deal\'s opponents**

Washington Post Editorial

April 19, 2008

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says the Bush administration\'s
free-trade agreement with Colombia may not be dead, even though she has
postponed a vote on it indefinitely. If the White House doesn\'t \"jam
it down the throat of Congress,\" she said, she might negotiate. Ms.
Pelosi wants an \"economic agenda that gives some sense of security to
American workers and businesses . . . that somebody is looking out for
them\" \-- though she was vague as to what that entails. Nor did she
specify how anyone could \"jam\" through a measure on which the
administration has already briefed Congress many, many times.

Still, in the hope that Ms. Pelosi might in fact schedule a vote, it may
be worth examining once more the arguments against this tariff-slashing
deal. Perhaps we should say \"argument,\" because there is really only
one left: namely, that Colombia is \"the most dangerous place in the
world to be a trade unionist\" and that the government of President
Álvaro Uribe is to blame. As AFL-CIO President John Sweeney put it in an
April 14 Post op-ed, union workers in Colombia \"face an implicit death
sentence.\"

Colombia is, indeed, violent \-- though homicide has dramatically
declined under Mr. Uribe. There were 17,198 murders in 2007. Of the
dead, only 39 \-- or 0.226 percent \-- were even members of trade
unions, let alone leaders or activists, according to the Colombian labor
movement. (Union members make up just under 2 percent of the Colombian
population.)

This hardly suggests a campaign of anti-union terrorism in Colombia.
Moreover, the number of trade unionists killed has fallen from a rate of
about 200 per year before Mr. Uribe took office in 2002, despite a
reported uptick in the past few months. (Arrests have already been made
in three of this year\'s cases, according to Bogota.) And evidence is
sparse that all, or even most, of the union dead were killed because of
their labor organizing. As Mr. Sweeney and other critics note, precious
few cases have been solved, which is hardly surprising given that
Colombia\'s judicial system has been under attack from left-wing
guerrillas, drug traffickers and right-wing death squads \-- a war, we
repeat, that Mr. Uribe has greatly contained. But in cases that have
been prosecuted, the victims\' union activity or presumed support for
guerrillas has been the motive in fewer than half of the killings.

An April 10 letter to the editor from Tom Malinowski of Human Rights
Watch suggested that we would not make such arguments \"if death squads
with ties to the U.S. government were targeting Post reporters for
assassination.\" We like to think that our criticism would be energetic
but fair, especially if the government was responding aggressively to
such a campaign and the number of killings was declining. No fair-minded
person can fail to note that Colombian unionists are far safer today
than they used to be.

There are two important countries at the north of South America. One,
Colombia, has a democratic government that, with strong support from the
Clinton and Bush administrations, has bravely sought to defeat brutal
militias of the left and right and to safeguard human rights. The other,
Venezuela, has a repressive government that has undermined media
freedoms, forcibly nationalized industries, rallied opposition to the
United States and, recent evidence suggests, supported terrorist groups
inside Colombia. That U.S. unions, human rights groups and now Democrats
would focus their criticism and advocacy on the former, to the benefit
of the latter, shows how far they have departed from their own declared
principles.

**What Nafta Trade Deficit?**

By JOHN ENGLER

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

April 21, 2008

It is amazing how some presidential candidates are blaming the North
American Free Trade Agreement for U.S. job losses. They seem to believe
that a substantial part of the three million manufacturing jobs lost
since 2000 resulted from Nafta, and that outsourcing of manufacturing
production to Mexico and Canada resulted in a huge trade deficit.

Too bad they don\'t know that the growth in the deficit isn\'t due to
manufactured goods, but to oil and gas imports.

There is no question that the imbalance of trade within Nafta has soared
since 2000. That deficit has almost doubled to nearly \$140 billion in
2007, from \$77 billion in 2000. But the deficit in manufactured goods
did not displace U.S. factory production.

What the antitrade advocates have been hiding from the candidates (or
maybe don\'t know themselves) is that almost all of the increase in our
Nafta deficit since 2000 has been in increased U.S. imports of energy
from Canada and Mexico. In fact, \$58 billion of the \$62 billion
increase in our Nafta deficit has been in energy imports. That\'s 95% of
the total increase.

We need that oil and gas, and we would rather get it from our friendly
neighbors. Surely no one seeks to argue that America would be better off
saying no to Mexican and Canadian oil and gas, advocating that we
instead import that energy from less secure sources farther from our
borders.

Except for energy, though, our trade deficit within Nafta has hardly
grown at all -- only \$3.5 billion from 2000-2007. Our agricultural and
manufactured goods sales to Nafta countries have just about kept pace
with our imports. That\'s a lot more than one can say about the rest of
our foreign trade.

While the nonenergy deficit within Nafta has grown less than \$4 billion
since the job loss started, with the rest of the world it grew over
\$150 billion. Put another way, the increase in our nonenergy deficit
within Nafta has accounted for only 2% of the increase in our global
nonenergy deficit since 2000.

Why are the candidates so focused on 2% of our trade problem rather than
on the other 98%? Our nonenergy deficit with the high-wage,
high-environmental-standard European Union (with whom we have no free
trade agreement) grew 10 times as much as it did with Nafta. And of
course, with China the deficit grew even more.

None of this is to say that some U.S. factories haven\'t closed and
their production moved to Canada or Mexico. Certainly that has happened.
But in the case of Nafta, that job impact has been almost exactly
balanced by increased U.S. production and exports of farm and factory
goods.

Suppose our trade with the rest of the world had performed as it did
within Nafta. Instead of seeing our nonenergy trade deficit grow over
\$155 billion, it would have grown only by \$25 billion. That would have
put us ahead by \$130 billion, which sounds pretty good to me.

Nafta has been part of the solution, not the problem. We can do even
better if we focus on how to make American manufacturing more
competitive than it is.

*Mr. Engler is president of the National Association of Manufacturers
and a former three-term governor of Michigan.*