What Obama's refusal to enact the Colombia trade deal says about his leadership

by Seth Mandel
December 29, 2010

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1192/what-obama-refusal-to-enact-the-colombia-trade

On Friday, President Barack Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, publicly turned the administration's back on Colombia, when he told the press that Obama would not be submitting the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to Congress, because "it doesn't have the votes."

This was finally a frank admission that the Democrats are not interested in supporting our allies—or rather it would have been. But Gibbs—in characteristic fashion—tried to blame incoming tea party Republicans, questioning their commitment to free trade.

In fact, the incoming Republicans have signaled that they would wholeheartedly support allies like Colombia. The truth is that the new Republican Congress is exactly what Colombia's president, Juan Manuel Santos, was waiting for, as he told the Washington Post last year. Here's the relevant exchange:

Washington Post: You have had problems with the free-trade agreement with the U.S.

President Santos: We have done everything we can. It is in the hands of the U.S. Congress. . . . People in Colombia don't understand [why] if we are strategic allies, other countries have free-trade agreements that are not as strategic or as good allies. I hope that after November the free-trade agreement will be approved.

Washington Post: When the Republicans come to power?

President Santos: Once you arrange your own internal political difficulties.

Santos expected the new Congress—fresh off a Republican win of the House of Representatives—to complete the free trade agreement signed by President George W. Bush and former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe in 2006. And so did Obama, actually—which is why he won't submit the agreement to Congress.

It's also important to reiterate the reasons we must pass the free trade agreement: It makes economic sense for us, and it would be a boost to "the Israel of Latin America," as Colombia is known because of its pro-democracy agenda and its status as the only such country in a hostile region.

First, on the economic justification for the agreement, the Wall Street Journal explained in an editorial what is wrong with opposition to the agreement.

"This makes no economic sense even on protectionist terms because Colombian goods already enter the U.S. duty free (assuming Congress extends these trade preferences this week)," the editorialists wrote. "The trade pact reduces Colombian tariffs on U.S. exports, which are increasingly at a disadvantage to goods from other countries. The Colombian government wants to reduce its own trade barriers to make its economy and domestic industries more competitive while reducing costs to consumers. This is how wise leaders who want to raise their domestic standard of living behave."

The moral case for completing the agreement was laid out nicely by Bush as he urged the then-Democratic Congress (unsuccessfully) to pass the deal.

"People throughout the hemisphere are watching to see what the United States will do," Bush said in 2008. "If Congress fails to approve this agreement, it would not only abandon a brave ally—it would send a signal throughout the region that America cannot be counted on to support its friends. As Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said: 'If the U.S. turns its back on its friends in Colombia, this will set back our cause far more than any Latin American dictator could hope to achieve.'"

There was once a somewhat reasonable case to be made that Colombia shouldn't get a free trade deal with the U.S. until anti-union violence was reduced dramatically. But that has now happened, and under Uribe kidnappings and murder rates were slashed—by 90 percent and 45 percent respectively. This, all while keeping democracy thriving in Hugo Chavez's neighborhood.

On the anti-terrorism front, this fall has been a blue-ribbon season for Colombia's military. In late September, 27 members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were killed in a raid, including the field commander Mono Jojoy and eastern bloc leader Romana. On September 19, Colombian air force and police killed senior FARC commander Domingo Biojo.

Coincidentally, Gibbs announced the agreement would not be forwarded to Congress on the same day Obama met with leaders of organized labor at the White House. Union leaders are already up in arms about the free trade deal with South Korea Obama signed earlier this month—and which will be forwarded to Congress, unlike the Colombia deal and a similar one with Panama—and there is not much patience for job-creating trade deals among the protectionist unions.

This should be bigger news than it is. Colombia is—with the possible exception of Israel—the easiest ally to support. It is doing the West's dirty work while improving its democratic character, and its merchants already have access to our markets. The deal would mostly benefit American manufacturers; what Colombia truly wants out of the deal is a simple, public expression of support from the leader of the free world. The deal is basically a pat on the back—and a well deserved one at that.

If Obama is unable to do that, what hope should dissidents in oppressive regimes around the world have? Most of our allies live in the shadow of aggressive tyrants—think South Korea, Japan, Israel, Colombia, Georgia. If we can't be counted on to enact a mutually beneficial trade deal, then we can't be counted on, period.

Related Topics:  Op-Ed and Editorial receive the latest by email: subscribe to weekly blitz's free mailing list