Is Obama right to object to Colombian FTA?

In my previous post, I mentioned how US Presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain had a relatively heated exchange on the pros and cons of a free trade agreement with Colombia. McCain came out in favour of it, with Obama arguing against it due to Colombia’s problematic human rights record, especially with regard to trade union members.

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial - "Obama makes it up" - strongly criticizing Obama’s stand and eluded to the fact that he is backed by the very same US trade unions that are perhaps not to keen to see a FTA with Colombia. Here is a video excerpt that shows columnist Mary O’Grady explaining why Obama’s objection to the FTA is nonsensical and based on facts that just don’t add up.



To counter her argument Benjamin Gaden on notes:

Neither O'Grady nor the WSJ editorial make note of a new 140-page report from Human Rights Watch, released last Thursday, that accuses Uribe of "jeopardizing efforts to secure justice for crimes committed by paramilitaries and their accomplices in Colombia." The report also points out that international pressure, such as delays in passing the Free Trade Agreement, "has in some cases prevented the government from trying to let paramilitaries’ accomplices off the hook." "Colombia’s justice institutions have made enormous progress in investigating paramilitaries and their powerful friends," José Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director at Human Rights Watch, said in a press release announcing the report. "But the Uribe administration keeps taking steps that could sabotage these investigations."

Latin America Debated in the US Presidential Debates

Latin America has been notable only its absent from the US Presidential debates.

In the first two debates between Barack Obama and John McCain and the VP debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin Latin America was mentioned fleetingly, Hugo Chávez denounced as a demagogue and Palin accusing Obama of wanting to have sit down in direct talks with the ‘Castro Brothers’. Nothing very substantial at all.

To everyone’s relief the 3rd debate proved a whole lot more invigorating and most noteworthy, for this blog, a couple of important issues relating to Latin America were discussed - dependency on Venezuelan oil, NAFTA, FTAs with Peru and Colombia.

Here is a transcript excerpt from the debate:

SCHIEFFER: All right. Can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and by how much in the first term, in four years?

MCCAIN: I think we can, for all intents and purposes, eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and Venezuelan oil. Canadian oil is fine. By the way, when Senator Obama said he would unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadians said, "Yes, and we'll sell our oil to China." You don't tell countries you're going to unilaterally renegotiate agreements with them.

[…]

OBAMA: I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that's about a realistic timeframe. Now I just want to make one last point because Senator McCain mentioned NAFTA and the issue of trade and that actually bears on this issue. I believe in free trade. But I also believe that for far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Senator McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And NAFTA doesn't have -- did not have enforceable labor agreements and environmental agreements.

[…]

MCCAIN: Now, on the subject of free trade agreements. I am a free trader. And I need -- we need to have education and training programs for displaced workers that work, going to our community colleges. But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Senator Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, is -- there's a billion dollars that we -- our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there. Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Senator Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans. And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars -- the billion dollars and more that we've already paid.Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

OBAMA: Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions. And what I have said, because the free trade -- the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights, which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement. But I think that the important point is we've got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also is going to enforce unfair trade agreements and is going to stand up to other countries.

And here's a video excerpt from the debate that highlights Obama's and McCain's differences regarding a possible FTA with Colombia: