American labor unions raise the issue of killings of Colombian union leaders as a reason to oppose the FTA. But this is a bogus argument, especially because the odds of being killed if you are a union leader in Colombia are now less than the odds of being killed if you are a regular citizen.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the only reason Congressmen are opposing the Colombian free trade agreement is to pander to ill-informed American public opinon.
Well, that's nice isn't it. Hey, you trade unionists - no worries, statistically you're no more likely to be murdered than a regular citizen! Never mind that the mere fact that you are a trade unionist still means that you are being singled out for execution. Frankels is pointing to a superficial statistic as though it proves, well I'm not sure what he's trying to prove with it. It's a meaningless statistic, especially in discussion of this trade pact.
Colombia is a violent place, no doubt, but the slaughter of unionists is a serious concern and one that can be properly addressed in a trade pact such as this. It’s not simply the slaughter of trade unionists that is at issue, it’s the seeming endorsement of this slaughter by the Uribe government as evidenced by the lack of arrests and prosecutions in these cases. Indeed since 2002 far less than 10% of all trade unionist murders have resulted in a trial. Why is this?
Frankels is also quite Polly-Annish about President Uribe. Is he aware that Uribe's cousin and close adviser was arrested earlier this week after being tied to far-right paramilitary groups? How about the recent accusations of bribery in exchange for votes to allow Uribe to run for President again in 2006? How about his alleged involvement in a 1997 massacre by paramilitaries? These are just stories from this week.
Frankels relies on a Nick Kristof column from today's New York Times as an intellectual crutch in defense of his trite analysis. Frankels explains,
Nor would free trade with Colombia be bad for human rights in that volatile country. The Uribe government is fighting the good fight against the guerillas and drugs, and deserves our support. It wants to give farmers some security, so that they know they have an assured US export market in cut flowers to replace the risky business of growing coca for cocaine.
The Taliban eliminated poppy production in Afghanistan when they were in power. Does any American today believe that we were right in sending financial aid to the Taliban prior to 9/11? Would one even conceive of justifying such a misguided policy on the basis of the War on Drugs? Poppy production is on the rise in Afghanistan, would Frankels propose that we abandon the Karzai government and return Mullah Omar to power? Frankels certainly seems to be arguing that a leader who toes the line in America's drug war is deserving of our support, no matter what other criminal conduct the leader is engaged in. His defense of the Colombian trade pact on these grounds is just as absurd. He's apparently given no thought to the logical conclusions of his arguments. He's dismissing superficial facsimile's of his oppositions arguments in an inexplicable desire to reward a corrupt far-right foreign government with a favorable trade pact.
Yes, yes roses are better than cocaine but that is not really what is at issue here. The controversies go far beyond Colombia's activities in the drug war. We need to ask ourselves, should the United States be granting trade privileges to a corrupt, oppressive and (allegedly) murderous far-right regime? This is a deeply corrupt administration with decidedly non-democratic tendencies and we shouldn’t be showering them with a free trade agreement and not extracting serious human rights concessions.
No comments:
Post a Comment