The Colombian free-trade revelation

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal took exception to Barack Obama’s answer in the last debate on the Colombian free-trade agreement. In its editorial, they pointed out that the accusations made against Alvaro Uribe’s government are mostly distortions made by protectionist unions who oppose any kind of free trade at all. Unsurprisingly, few in the Tanning Bed Media bothered to point this out, but McCain’s attack on Obama’s position points out the fundamental weakness of Obama on foreign policy:

In Wednesday night’s debate with John McCain, Barack Obama defended his opposition to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement this way: “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 any prosecutions.” Among the many falsehoods in this Presidential campaign, this is one of the worst.

It is true that Colombia has a history of violence. But since President Álvaro Uribe took office in 2002, that violence has been substantially reduced. The homicide rate through the end of 2007 was down by 40.4% and the rate among union members was down almost 87%. There is nothing “consistent” about a drop to 26 union member murders in 2007 from 155 in 2000.

As for prosecutions: In union-member killings, there were zero convictions from 1991-2000 and one in 2001. But from 2002-2007, there were 80. According to the Colombian attorney general’s office, 29% of those murders were “found to have been results of theft, petty crime and random violence unrelated to union activity.” Mr. Uribe has nonetheless created a special investigative unit for crimes against union members, and he expanded a special government protection program for unions.

In other words, Obama is operating under old information — almost a decade old. Despite Colombia and Uribe being under attack from the Marxist terrorist group FARC (and its Venezuelan ally, Hugo Chavez), Uribe has greatly improved the country’s record in fighting violence against union leaders. While doing so, Colombia has provided us with an invaluable alliance against drug cartels as well as a counterweight to Chavez’ ambitions in the region.

But more importantly, Obama apparently hasn’t learned anything about trade with Colombia. The pact would lift tariffs on American goods entering the Colombian market, not the other way around. Why? The US doesn’t impose tariffs on Colombian goods, and hasn’t for years, thanks to agreements that date back to the Clinton administration for Colombian efforts to fight drug trafficking. The pact would create jobs in America by opening the Colombian market to make trade more fair than it currently is.

That’s why John McCain calls this a “no brainer” in his response. The Colombians already have an open market in the US, and the agreement would balance it for American companies looking to enter the Colombian market. It would also strengthen our alliance with the Uribe government, a much-needed boost for an ally with two enemies on its borders. It costs us nothing and expands our ability to export. And note that Obama never explains how denying this pact will do anything to improve the position of labor unions in terms of justice in Colombia.

Obama does nothing but regurgitate the tired, old protectionist rhetoric and excuses from organized labor. It gives a different meaning to the term “no brainer”.

Blowback