A war-torn country with a democratically elected government, plagued by
militias, terrorists, and drugs--but one that is steadily making progress
against all these evils--wants to strengthen its ties to the United States. The
Bush administration acts to help this ally. What does the Democratic Congress
do? It changes the rules so that the Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CFTA),
negotiated in good faith between the two governments and inked in 2006, can't
come to a vote.
Memo to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez: Send flowers to the office of House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
It is Chávez who profits most from the CFTA's demise. For years now, he's
been locked in a struggle with Colombian president lvaro Uribe over the future
of South America. Chávez wants that future to
be socialist, authoritarian, friendly to other dictators, and belligerent
toward the United States.
Uribe wants it to be market-oriented, democratic, and integrated into an
international system friendly to freedom and organized and led by the United States.
The two visions could not be more different.
Venezuela and Colombia almost went to war in March, when Colombia struck a terrorist camp run by the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) inside neighboring Ecuador. The
FARC has terrorized Colombians for years, murdering, taking hostages,
trafficking in drugs. But Uribe has forced it into retreat. The March strike
was a success. It killed FARC number two Raúl Reyes and led to the capture of
his laptop, which contained files suggesting cooperation between the FARC and
Venezuelan military intelligence. Chávez's response? He massed troops on the
Venezuelan-Colombia border and threatened war.
The crisis abated, but there will be another. Thus this moment of relative
tranquility was the perfect time for the United States to demonstrate just
which side we are on, with passage of the CFTA. Instead we have turned our back
on Uribe and the Latin American future he represents, supporting Chávez's
claims that the "hegemon" is untrustworthy. Free trade agreements are
not simply about trade. They are also about geopolitics: helping friends,
strengthening alliances, shaping the future of, in this case, our hemisphere.
The arguments against the CFTA are laughably weak. Congressional Democrats
say the deal would hurt U.S.
workers. But more than 90 percent of Colombian imports already enter this
country duty-free. So the main economic effect of the agreement would be the
elimination of tariffs on U.S.
exports to Colombia--thus
workers. The agreement would "level the playing field" to our
advantage. One estimate says the U.S. farm sector alone would reap
an additional $690 million per year. Hence the balance of trade isn't the
issue. If trade were the issue, then the Democratic Congress wouldn't have
ratified the Peru Free Trade Agreement in December 2007.
Democrats claim that the White House didn't go out of its way to cooperate
with Congress on the CFTA. That's simply false. The administration reports it
held "more than 400 consultations, meetings, and calls"; sponsored
"trips to Colombia
for more than 50 members of Congress"; and worked closely with
congressional leaders from both parties. It even agreed to support a
"trade adjustment assistance" package in exchange for votes on the
trade deal. What more could the White House have done? Placed mints on the
Democrats like California
representative Howard Berman say that "Colombia's troubling history of
labor activist assassinations and human-rights violations" requires that
the deal be held up. Since 2002, however, the murder of trade unionists has
fallen by close to 80 percent. Homicides, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks
are down. Colombia's
human rights record is improving. It used to be that Colombia was so dangerous mayors
had to live outside the cities they governed. Not any more. Today all of them
live and work in the cities they govern. This is called progress. The trade
agreement rewarded progress.
Why did Pelosi move to let the Colombia deal die? Politics. It's
an election year. The Democrats need union money, and the unions oppose free
trade. Democratic presidential candidates go from coast to coast telling
audiences that free trade has devastated our economy. This is nonsense. But it
wouldn't look too good if the Democratic Congress belied this irresponsible,
hostile-to-foreigners, belligerent--one might say, unilateralist--rhetoric.
There's another reason, too: President Bush. Congress
has now rejected the White House's two legislative priorities in 2008: a reform
in the eavesdropping law that includes immunity for telecommunications firms
and the CFTA. Congress's top priority is to make sure voters perceive the Bush
presidency as a failure. They may think they are well on their way to achieving
this goal. That in both of these matters the Democrats' hatred of Bush will
redound to the benefit of enemies of the United States seems not to concern
them in the least.