Cynicism and Colombia

I'm increasingly seeing arguments that the real importance of the Colombia trade deal is political, rather than economic. Colombia has made important strides over the past several years, and the Colombian government is our proxy of choice in South America enmeshed in conflict with guerillas backed by Hugo Chavez.

But there are two ways to read the security/trade linkage here. One would be that this deal is a favor to the Colombian government that we should do to bolster them. Another would be that this deal is a favor to the U.S. business enterprises who run the Bush administration that the Colombian government has agreed to in order to retain the support of the American security apparatus for their counterinsurgency. Interpretation one is getting all the press, but if you read the agreement the Colombians seems to be making almost all the policy changes, suggesting interpretation two. What's more, though interpretation one is certainly the more high-minded argument to make in your magazine, blog post, or congressional speech argument two seems, if true, more convincing on the merits.

Comments

um, yeah:
http://www.gregpalast.com/300-million-from-chavez-to-farc-a-fake/

Posted by snuh | April 12, 2008 12:54 PM

You are foregoing one additional interpretation: that Uribe actually buys into the idea of free trade and what it will do for Colombia.

Do please remember that while Colombia has a fairly educated population, it has had a horrible half century (well, actually 60 years going back to the April 1948 Bogotazo), and is only now sort of pulling itself up by the bootstraps.

Matt, I suggest you get a suscription with Latin Lawyer, and see the tremendously high number of deals and/or direct investment going into Colombia nowadays, which clearly shows that there is growing business confidence in the country (or at least important companies the world over willing to invest in Colombia).

The FTA with the U.S. is a cherry-on-top/marketing devise to bolster this (that's how a similar FTA is being viewed in Perú), and also helps Colombia "lock-in" a lot of the what Uribe believes is best for the country (since it will be in treaty form).

P.S. I'm not Colombian, but Panamanian, and while we (Panamanians) have had a historically difficult relationship with Colombia, it's quite striking to see the changed perception in Colombians during the Uribe presidency.

Colombia has certainly not become Shangri-La, but it is very interesting that we (Panama) are no longer getting a huge migration (for Panama) of Colombians getting out for security reasons (and to a lesser extent, because of economic concerns), and we are actually getting bushels of Venezuelans nowadays who are uprooting and coming here for good.....

Posted by JRVJ | April 12, 2008 1:08 PM

It seems perverse to oppose the FTA because you think it's bad for the Colombians. Colombia, despite its problems, has the most successful democratic governance record in South America, and is quite capable of looking out for its own interests. To second-guess their judgment is quite condescending, to say the least.

Posted by right | April 12, 2008 1:11 PM

Since Columbia already enjoys a fair amount of trade preference, any negative impact on America from Columbian imports has long since happened. What the FTA actually does is increase the access of American firms to Columbian markets. Thus the primary beneficiaries are American workers at those firms.

Which makes it all the more ironic that the supposed defenders of the working class are the ones making the loudest objections to it.

Posted by wj | April 12, 2008 1:23 PM

"It seems perverse to oppose the FTA because you think it's bad for the Colombians. Colombia, despite its problems, has the most successful democratic governance record in South America, and is quite capable of looking out for its own interests. To second-guess their judgment is quite condescending, to say the least.

Posted by right | April 12, 2008 1:11 PM"

That's assuming that the Colombian government is backing it both because the people want it and on the merits of the deal alone. I'm not saying this isn't the case. I have no opinion either way, am in general in favor of free trade (though I hate how deals with nations that have a big agricultural sector protect our agrobusinesses' subsidies while requiring that other countries adapt our protectionist IP laws, can only buy American-made pharma, etc.), but the scenario MY outlines above can be true as well. IIRC Bush yanked Plan Colombia off the table once before because Colombia refused to accept American ICC immunity because doing so would violate the Colombian constitution. Latin America, after all, has been the part of the world where the US has been most violent, meddling and imperialistic. It wouldn't be that hard to see Uribe doing this primarily because he thinks it's the only way to guarantee Colombia's close military relationship with the US.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 2:03 PM

FARC backed by Chavez???

HA. HA. HA. HA. HA. HA.

Wow, Uribe really has infected our media.

Posted by More Axe | April 12, 2008 2:10 PM

Quote from the Greg Palast article linked to above:

"But guess who couldn’t wait to parrot the Bush line? Hillary Clinton, still explaining that her vote to invade Iraq was not a vote to invade Iraq, issued a statement nearly identical to Bush’s, blessing the invasion of Ecuador as Colombia’s “right to defend itself.” And she added, "Hugo Chávez must stop these provoking actions.” Huh?

I assumed that Obama wouldn’t jump on this landmine – especially after he was blasted as a foreign policy amateur for suggesting he would invade across Pakistan’s border to hunt terrorists.

It's embarrassing that Barack repeated Hillary’s line nearly verbatim, announcing, “the Colombian government has every right to defend itself.”

(I’m sure Hillary’s position wasn’t influenced by the loan of a campaign jet to her by Frank Giustra. Giustra has given over a hundred million dollars to Bill Clinton projects. Last year, Bill introduced Giustra to Colombia’s Uribe. On the spot, Giustra cut a lucrative deal with Uribe for Colombian oil.)

Then there’s Mr. War Hero. John McCain weighed in with his own idiocies, announcing that, “Hugo Chavez is establish[ing] a dictatorship,” presumably because, unlike George Bush, Chavez counts all the votes in Venezuelan elections.

But now our story gets tricky and icky.

The wise media critic Jeff Cohen told me to watch for the press naming McCain as a foreign policy expert and labeling the Democrats as amateurs. Sure enough, the New York Times, on the news pages Wednesday, called McCain, “a national security pro.”

McCain is the “pro” who said the war in Iraq would cost nearly nothing in lives or treasury dollars.

But, on the Colombian invasion of Ecuador, McCain said, “I hope that tensions will be relaxed, President Chavez will remove those troops from the borders - as well as the Ecuadorians - and relations continue to improve between the two.”

It’s not quite English, but it’s definitely not Bush. And weirdly, it’s definitely not Obama and Clinton cheerleading Colombia’s war on Ecuador.

Democrats, are you listening? The only thing worse than the media attacking Obama and Clinton as amateurs is the Democratic candidates’ frightening desire to prove them right."

Like I've said many times here, Obama is fucking CLUELESS about foreign policy! Clinton is a right wing hawk on everything, McCain is a loony-tune, but Obama - everybody's foreign policy "hero" - is simply clueless.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 12, 2008 4:53 PM

It is not "condescending" for an individual to reason through any conclusion about what he or she thinks would be good or bad in any society.

Just as in the USA, one may be correct about a topic even if 95, 99, or 99.99% of the population feels the opposite way, one may be correct or incorrect about their arguments regarding the FTA with Colombia whether it is strongly, weakly, or otherwise backed by the government.

The existence or lack of a majority in favor or opposed to a proposition does not make it right or wrong, nor does the strength or weakness of a government's backing of an initiative make it right or wrong.

Posted by El Cid | April 12, 2008 6:09 PM

I disagree with Richard Steven Hack.

If anything, Obama is picking the winning side. Four years from now, Uribe might be gone, but Colombia will still be a democracy, with free market, respect to investors and growing healthily. On the other hand, his neighbor to the east will be unceremoniously kicked out of office with his country in bankruptcy as soon as oil prices return to normal levels.

Posted by Eco | April 12, 2008 7:58 PM

as soon as oil prices return to normal levels.

Awesome.

Posted by scythia | April 12, 2008 9:01 PM

About MY's puerile argument about the the FTA:

Do you think the Peru, Mexico and Chile negotiated a free trade agreement with the US because they need US military support in case the FARC attack their territory?

The question is not why some Latin countries do sign FTA with the US, but what kind of political disfunction causes some of them (Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela) not to want it.

Posted by Eco | April 12, 2008 9:02 PM

Being seen as bolstering the Columbian government and actually bolstering the Columbian government are two different things.

Significant contributors to both parties - the prison guard and INS (or whatever they're called today) unions as well as the private prison and deportation industrial complex - benefit from a semi-stable supply of narcotics coming into this country and so in turn do the Democratic and Republican politicians themselves.

The fact that gangs of Latin American origin (who may not have come about in Latin America without the American war on drugs) are now moving into white, suburban areas of southern California (and likely - eventually - elsewhere) means ordinary Americans will clamor for more law n order spending, further rollbacks of civil liberties, and further cuts in social spending for the Alien Invaders (which in turn leads these people back into the arms of the multinational gangs who provide everything from education to health care). As far as Democrats and Republicans in elected offices are concerned it's a win-win.

Posted by Linus | April 12, 2008 10:37 PM

"as soon as oil prices return to normal levels."

That has to be the most bizarre statement on this blog since I don't know when.

It's amazing how many people seem to be addicted to ketamine or DMT.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 13, 2008 12:19 AM

"Do you think the Peru, Mexico and Chile negotiated a free trade agreement with the US because they need US military support in case the FARC attack their territory?

The question is not why some Latin countries do sign FTA with the US, but what kind of political disfunction causes some of them (Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela) not to want it.

Posted by Eco | April 12, 2008 9:02 PM"

Just to play Devil's advocate here, why does the reason one country sign a FTA with the US have to be the same reason that another country does as well? Just because they are in Latin America doesn't mean those governments have the same motives.

Posted by Reality Man | April 13, 2008 1:17 AM

The question is not why some Latin countries do sign FTA with the US, but what kind of political disfunction causes some of them (Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela) not to want it.

US backed dictatorships that imprisoned, tortured & killed opponents with the knowledge & blessing of the US?

Posted by Don Quijote | April 13, 2008 8:26 AM

""as soon as oil prices return to normal levels."

That has to be the most bizarre statement on this blog since I don't know when.

It's amazing how many people seem to be addicted to ketamine or DMT."

Why is this bizarre, Mr. Hack?

By any chance are you familiar with the econometric literature about the stochastic properties of oil prices? Afraid not. To summarize, there are people smarter than myself (meaning, really, really smart), such as Professor James Hamilton of UCSD, who model oil prices as switching between two states: in one of them, they are high and volatile; in the other, low and stable. Most of the times, the stochastic process is in the second state.

Posted by Eco | April 13, 2008 8:37 AM

Don Quijote tries to explain why some Latin countries do not want a FTA with the US:

"US backed dictatorships that imprisoned, tortured & killed opponents with the knowledge & blessing of the US?"

My answer: This point does not hold water.

The most murderous dictatorship that received support from the US in Suth America was the Chilean one, and the Chile are happy signatories of a bilateral FTA with the US.

On the other hand, Brazil which had a relatively mild experience with dictatorship (death tally about 400 out of then 100M people) is adamant against it.

There is no correlation between US intervention and willingness to sign a FTA.

There is however, some correlation between having a disfunctional political system (Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador) with a combination of groups forever fighting for rents, higher frequency of coups and therefore an unwillingness to commit for free trade and safe property rights.

Brazil is at the middle, not as disfunctional as Argentina, but way behind Chile.

Posted by Eco | April 13, 2008 5:23 PM

"Another would be that this deal is a favor to the U.S. business enterprises who run the Bush administration"

A small caveat, but let's not pretend that the deal's benefits to america would all go to snooty, yaht-sailing rich people. Increased purchase of american goods helps a wide swath of american workers.

Matt may be right that option 2 is the most plausible explaination, but he characterized it's benefits to america in a very misleading way.

Posted by scottynx | April 13, 2008 6:07 PM

"Colombia, despite its problems, has the most successful democratic governance record in South America, and is quite capable of looking out for its own interests." (Right)

That is a ridiculous statement. Colombia has not had an effectively functioning government within its own borders since 1948.

Right now its government has the worst human rights record of any country in Latin America (and that includes Cuba).

"and the Colombian government is our proxy of choice in South America enmeshed in conflict with guerillas backed by Hugo Chavez."

Matthew, I'm surprised you have made an unspported and misleading assertion like that. The Colombian civil war and the FARC long predate the neighbouring government of Hugo Chavez and have little to do with each other.

Posted by Alex Higgins | April 13, 2008 6:27 PM

Alex Higgins, not an expert on Latin America, ponders:

"Colombia has not had an effectively functioning government within its own borders since 1948."

That is not true in any sense. The most amazing thing about Colombia is how their institutions manage to fundtion well, despite fighting a civil war for decades.

Other countries in South America (Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Chile) had hyper or very high inflation. Not Colombia.

Other countries in South America had endless and repeated institutional crisis and coups (Bolivia, Argentina, Paraguay). Not Colombia.

Marxist terrorists invaded Colombia's supreme court and murdered the judges and burned down the building in the eighties. Yet the country did not have a military junta or tinpot dictators, but democratically elected civilian presidents for all of the last few decades.

"Right now its government has the worst human rights record of any country in Latin America (and that includes Cuba)."

This is simply untrue. False. Falso. Mentira. Lie.

Posted by Eco | April 13, 2008 7:59 PM

Alex Higgins,

You're correct and you shouldn't listen to Eco's oligarchic lies. Colombia is _by far_ the most vicious and bloodthirsty regime in Latin America, nothing else even comes close. (From my point of view of course, while I am critical of some things about Cuba I'm generally more in favor than against Castro and the Revolution.)

Colombia has been essentially an oligarchic tyranny for all of its late 20th century history. Two essentially indistinguishable oligarchic-capitalist parties alternating in power, if you consider that democracy. When left wing forces have tried to compete in elections (like the M-19 during the late 1980s) they have been summarily slaughtered. The Colombian elites have made it very clear that they won't tolerate any left wing challenge to their power.

Those weren't 'terrorists' by the way who took over the Supreme Court building. The M-19 were freedom fighters fighting for a good cause. Their cause was just and legitimate, the Colombian regime was not, and those judges were collaborators of a filthy oligarchic tyranny.

I don't support the FARC today since they have degenerated from their original idealism into a criminal gang. But there was a time in which they and the other left wing guerrillas were very definitely the legitimate force that deserved to rule over a socialist Colombia. Of course social parasites and their apologists like Eco wouldn't like that since no doubt it would strip them of their privileges.

Posted by Hector | April 13, 2008 8:29 PM

Hector:
"I'm generally more in favor than against Castro and the Revolution... Those weren't 'terrorists' by the way who took over the Supreme Court building. The M-19 were freedom fighters fighting for a good cause."

Farc's original idealism... Well the Farcs were as idealistic as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were too... Now that they shed their totalitarian skin and are only drug trafickers and kidnappers, you are not for them anymore...

Well, Hector, there is nothing else to argue with you. Your writing seems to imply a left totalitarianism regime would be good for Colombia or some other Latin country, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Adios and have a good trip back to the Gamma Quadrant,

Eco

Posted by Eco | April 13, 2008 9:09 PM

Hector:
"But there was a time in which they and the other left wing guerrillas were very definitely the legitimate force that deserved to rule over a socialist Colombia. Of course social parasites and their apologists like Eco wouldn't like that since no doubt it would strip them of their privileges."

"Social parasites"?... Hector, I have a feeling that you'd feel at home in Germany circa 1938. And then what would you do with the "social parasites and their apologists"? Hang them? Or just a hardened but tender send off, Che Guevara style?

Just a small advice: if you are engaging in a discussion in a US progressive blog, try not to use Nazi imagery to make your point. Such figures of speech fit well elsewhere, but not here.

Eco

Posted by Eco | April 13, 2008 9:15 PM

That is a ridiculous statement. Colombia has not had an effectively functioning government within its own borders since 1948. Right now its government has the worst human rights record of any country in Latin America (and that includes Cuba).

You obviously know very little about Colombian or Latin American history.

I defy you to show me a major Latin American country with a better record of democratic governance and human rights since 1948.

Posted by right | April 13, 2008 9:42 PM

As a Latin American, it really sickens me how the US policies towards the region are used as partizan footballs. The current position of both Dems is shameful.

After all, the current policy towards Colombia (Plan Colombia) was initiated by the Clinton administration, the facts on the ground vindicated those policies as successful (FARC in retreat, Colombia's economy booming), yet the Dems stick it into the Colombians as a way of attacking the GOP.

In other words, we Latins are played as sacrificial lambs to domestic US politics. That is exactly why there is mistrust towards the US south of the border.

Posted by Eco | April 13, 2008 10:51 PM

Matt, it's a FREE TRADE deal. There are, by fiat of the Washington Post editorial page, no losers whenever you call your agreement a "free trade deal."

Posted by Nordy | April 14, 2008 3:10 PM