NY TIMES MISTAKEN IN SUPPORT OF TRADE AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA

I strongly disagree with the editorial in today's The New York Times urging the passage of the free trade agreement with Colombia.

Writes the NYT:

"We don’t say it all that often, but President Bush is right: Congress should pass the Colombian free-trade agreement now.

"Mr. Bush signed the deal two years ago. The Democratic majority in Congress has refused to approve it out of a legitimate concern over the state of human rights in Colombia and less legitimate desires to pander to organized labor or deny Mr. Bush a foreign policy win.

"We believe that the trade pact would be good for America’s economy and workers. Rejecting it would send a dismal message to allies the world over that the United States is an unreliable partner and, despite all that it preaches, does not really believe in opening markets to trade. There is no more time to waste. If the lame-duck Congress does not approve the trade pact this year, prospects would dim considerably since it would lose the cover of the rule (formerly known as fast track) that provides for an up-or-down, no-amendment vote."

Colombia has long been a home to right wing death squads. These groups seem to have the backing of Colombia's ruling class and the Colombian army. Just recently a story has emerged how the Colombian military had a practice of kidnapping young men from poorer sections of Bogota to take to the jungle, kill them, and then proffer their bodies as successful head counts in the war against the FARC.

Furthermore, Colombia's president Alvaro Uribe is no friend of the rule of law or democracy. Uribe wanted Colombia's constitution changed so he could run for a third term. Furthermore, he ordered an attack of a FARC camp inside Ecuador, a clear violation of Ecuador's sovereignty and against international law.

And Uribe is a close ally of George W. Bush. That in itself should make Congress think twice before approving the trade agreement.

Instead of blindly giving Bush and Uribe what they want, Congress should wait until the new Obama administration comes on stage. Obama needs to do a thorough review of U.S. policy towards Latin America. In particular, he needs to change the current Bush policy of neglect and disinterest in Latin American events and politics.

Obama needs to cultivate Hugo Sanchez of Venezuela as well as Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador. There is no reason why Obama should continue the failed Bush policy of trying to make these leaders and their states "enemies" of the United States. I am sure they all look forward to getting rid of the Bush administration and starting a new more peaceful era with Obama.

Therefore, in disagreement with the NYT, no agreement over trade with Colombia at this point. Wait till Obama comes in. Then perhaps the U.S. can establish free trade pacts not only with Colombia but also with all the other countries in the region, including Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

PUBLIC EDITOR NY TIMES DEFENDS STORIES SAYING IRAN SUPPLIES WEAPONS

I was surprised at the Public Editor's take on the series of stories by NY Times reporter Michael Gordon purporting to show how Iran was supplying and aiding Shiite militias in Iraq. Many readers wrote in to complain that the The New York Times was once again coming out with dubiously based stories that enable Bush/Cheney to foment another war in the Middle East. Clark Hoyt writes in today's NY Times:

"I don’t buy the view that The Times — in the words of a Crystal Gayle song of the ’70s — is headed down that wrong road again. I reviewed virtually everything the newspaper has published about Iran this year, and the record is a very good one. The Times has broken important stories on Iran’s nuclear program and on an internal debate within the administration over the option of military action, to name just two."

But wait. The stories by Michael Gordon present no evidence to back up the assertion that Iran is supplying arms and specially designed explosive penetrating devices to Shiite militias who are then using these arms to kill American soldiers. All we have in the Gordon stories is the accusation cast by U.S. military, following the Bush/Cheney line out of Washington, that Iran is involved.

Even Hoyt recognizes that the NY Times is not without responsibility for presenting hearsay and accusation without more. Writes Hoyt:

"But there are special lengths that The Times — or any other news organization — must go to when dealing with an issue so protracted, so complicated, and so politicized. It must take pains when reporting today’s events to add yesterday’s perspective. It must attribute information exhaustively to keep sources’ credibility and motives in view. And it must be willing to revisit old ground when new developments change the context.


"The recent article demonstrates some of the pitfalls. I think it had avoidable problems that helped lead to the eruption of criticism, a view vehemently disputed by Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, and Michael Gordon, who wrote the piece.

"Readers said that, at a time of growing tensions between the United States and Iran, the article failed to offer persuasive evidence that Iran was the source of the bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, E.F.P.’s, which can go through the armor of Humvees.

"In fact, strong evidence was provided in a 2,600-word article by Gordon and Scott Shane, published March 27, and Gordon said, “I do sort of assume that readers will have some familiarity with the body of our coverage over the past few months.” I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption, and I believe The Times could have found a way to remind skeptics of the essentials in the March article without repeating it in its entirety."

It is in this last paragraph that Clark Hoyt goes off the deep end. What evidence in the story of March 27? And why was it "strong?" All it was was descriptions of explosive devices with serial numbers claimed by the U.S. government to have come from Iran. But those accusations don't make it so.

Why do the serial numbers prove the devices originated from Iran? Such weapons are made and manufactured all over the world, even in basements and garages in Iraq. These serial numbers are garbage if presented as "evidence." Second, how does the U.S. know the government of Iran supplied them? Suppose they were supplied by cousin Ralphie or Mohammad from some little town across the border in Iran. Does this make Iran itself complicit?

These are the type of questions that Michael Gordon and his stories in the NY Times never address, much less answer. All Gordon does is take the word of the U.S. generals who take their orders from Bush and Cheney. I thought a news reporter was to supposed to investigate sources and obtain corroboration on all the facts alleged in his/her story.

These are the areas Clark Hoyt as Public Editor should pursue. Instead of claiming that the story by Michael Gordon on March 27 presented "strong evidence," he should insist that reporters at the NY Times get off their rears and do the required leg work before their editors print such stories in the NY Times.

REJECT THE CURRENT IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT

The New York Times has an editorial today on the recent immigration deal arrived at in the Senate that has Bush's approval.

I fully agree with the NYT's position:

"It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders."

However, I must be even more pessimistic about the current agreement. I think it is unworkable because it contains a requirement that heads of households engage in a "touchback," i.e., returning to their countries of origin and making official application there for permanent residency. The New York Times calls this provision "foolish." I believe hardly any head of household will do this, because 1) it will separate them from their families for at least a year, maybe two or three, in the process of waiting for their applications to be processed; and 2) people will be afraid that once they leave the U.S., the law will change and they will never be allowed back.

The New York Times talks about the "awful" rules on temporary workers:

"The agreement fails most dismally in its temporary worker program. “Temporary means temporary” has been a Republican mantra, motivated by the thinly disguised impulse to limit the number of workers, Latinos mostly, doing the jobs Americans find most distasteful. The deal calls for the creation of a new underclass that could work for two years at a time, six at the most, but never put down roots. Immigrants who come here under that system — who play by its rules, work hard and gain promotions, respect and job skills — should be allowed to stay if they wish. But this deal closes the door. It offers a way in but no way up, a shameful repudiation of American tradition that will encourage exploitation — and more illegal immigration."

This agreement will spawn a permanent class of subsistence laborers who will work only in dead-end jobs and have no economic security or hope to better their lives. To say that a worker may work for only two years and then either go back or apply for another period of two years, with a maximum of six, is wrong and will create huge social upheaval for the laborers. What does a worker do after his term of six years in the United States has been used up? I doubt that such workers will want to go back permanently to their home countries. They will stay in the U.S. one way or other.

This is a bad immigration package. The Congress should reject it or change it. Bush is so eager for anything which will cause his "legacy" to look good that he will sign any immigration bill. But apart from preventing Bush any credit, the terms are on balance anti-immigrant. Congress should let this one go, and wait till the country has a Democratic president in the White House who will take a more principled stand than Bush in protecting immigrant rights.

DIVERSITY OF VIEWS IN ISRAEL TOWARDS PALESTINIANS

Margalit Fox in Friday's The New York Times writes an obituary on Professor Tanya Reinhart which illuminates the diversity of views of Israelis towards the Palestinian Question. According to the obit, Ms. Reinhart "was best known to the public as an ardent critic of her country's plicies towards the Palestinians . . ."

"Professor Reinhart, who for many years taught linguistics and cultural studies at Tel Aviv University, was known for her outspoken views and writings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She called repeatedly for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, and in recent years supported a European petition calling for an academic boycott of Israel."

So much for a common American misconception that the views of Israelis are monolithic and unified in support of the Israeli government's harsh policies and actions versus the Palestinians.