FREE TRADE BENEFITS MORE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, HURTS LESS DEVELOPED

The Dohar WTO trade talks collapsed yesterday in Geneva amid fighting and irreconciliable differences between principally the United States and India and China over the insistence by the U.S. and other more developed countries that they must maintain their farm subsidies.

Anthony Faiola and Rama Lakshmi write in The Washington Post today:

"The failure of the talks after nine days of intense negotiations underscored what is likely to be the biggest challenge in coming years to expanding world trade: the reluctance of emerging juggernauts such as India and China to risk their newfound success by offering rich nations greater access to the hundreds of millions of consumers rising out of poverty in the developing world."

So much for the Bush insistence that "free trade" is always beneficial and an unalloyed bonum. If that were really the truth, the U.S. would have compromised by unraveling its farm subsidies. This sticking point in the Dohar talks has always been the dirty little secret of free-trade agreements. We (i.e. Americans) want you (i.e., the rest of the world, especially, less developed countries) to allow our goods, especially agricultural ones, and our other products into your societies without import tariffs, but we refuse to end our subsidies to our farmers and manufacturers. In other words, "free trade" really is a one-sided agreement. Trade with us Americans and accept our terms, otherwise we will cut you off. This is the American threat.

Report Faiola and Lakshmi:

"The talks in Geneva at times took on a highly charged, personal tone that immediately cast the negotiations as a power struggle between the developed and developing worlds. Within 24 hours of landing in Geneva nine days ago, Brazil's foreign minister, Celso Amorim, infuriated First World negotiators, comparing their efforts to hype their proposed trade concessions to Nazi propaganda. His comments drew sharp reprimands, particularly from Washington's top negotiator, U.S. Trade Ambassador Susan C. Schwab, the daughter of Jewish Holocaust survivors . . . ."

"Opposition to the talks had been building in India since June, when 35 farmers groups from across that nation gathered at a conference in New Delhi to discuss the implications of the trade negotiations with trade and food policy activists. They called upon wealthy nations to remove their farm subsidies, saying such assistance to First World farmers denies a level playing field to subsistence-farming nations such as India."

India and China and other developing countries would not agree this time to American trade intransigence. Thus the much lamented demise of the Dohar Agreement. It shows how Bush and his other Republican "free trade" enthusiasts view the rest of the world, especially the poorer and less economically developed countries.

STOP FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA

Congress must resist the pressure coming from George Bush to approve the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Colombia.

AP's Martin Crutsinger writes in today's washingtonpost.com:

"The need for this agreement is too urgent, the stakes for our national security are too high to allow this year to end without a vote," Bush said.

"Bush signed a document to transmit the trade agreement to Congress, but Congress won't formally receive it until lawmakers return on Tuesday. Bush's action will force Congress to take up the proposal under a fast-track process that requires votes within 90 days. Officials said Bush is acting now in order to force a vote before Congress leaves in the fall for the campaign season.

""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," Bush said."

For one thing, these free trade agreements don't do enough to protect the indigenous farmer and small business in the Latin countries. As we have seen from NAFTA, the benefits of free trade usually go to the large American agri-businesses and mega-businesses. The subsistence-level Mexican farmer is left to suffer the severe economic consequences. The question for Mexicans is then, how does a small farm compete with the large corporate American mega-farms that can produce corn or tomatoes so much more cheaply? NAFTA has done nothing to answer this question, and I am sure neither does the proposed agreement with Colombia.

Second, Colombia is rife with para-military groups intent on preserving landowners from the lower classes. This is the reason for FARC, the Colombian insurgency, that for the last 20 years plus has waged guerrilla war against the Colombian government. We have Alvaro Uribe now as president of Colombia. He is a direct scion of the privileged classes. This past March 1st, Uribe directed Colombian army units to cross the border and mount an attack against FARC in a camp in Ecuador, something that violates all international norms on the sovereignty of countries and their borders. The result was that some dozens were killed, including four Mexican college students who were investigating FARC's modus vivendi. Also killed was a high FARC commander, Raul Reyes, who seemed willing to negotiate the release of some two thousand hostages held by FARC. Reyes' killing has effectively put an end to further FARC releases of hostages, including the most famous, Ingrid Betancourt, former Colombian presidential candidate.

Congress should turn down George Bush's agreement with Colombia until Uribe and his Colombian supporters agree to root out the para-militaries and guarantee Colombian subsistence farmers a fair deal in any agreement on trade with the U.S. George Bush has sent billions of dollars of military aid to Uribe in the hopes of countering Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Boliva and Rafael Correa of Ecuador. Congress cannot and should not allow Bush to get away with this free trade pact, above all designed to punish Latin countries that see Bush for what he is, the worst war monger and American imperialist since Richard Nixon.