Phony Clintonite Dems Love The Terrible Colombia Trade Pact
I've written about Colombia and the awful free trade pact so often (just plug Colombia into the Quicksearch on this site for more information) that mine eyes glaze over.
However, this article in the NYTimes is sickening and inspired me to write once again about the pact.
Besides Clintonite Mark Penn, "A long list of former Clinton administration aides, including Mack McLarty, the former counsel to the president; Donna E. Shalala, the health and human services secretary; and Leon E. Panetta, the onetime chief of staff, also have come out in support of the deal. It puts them in alliance with Mr. Bush and Republican leaders."
These people are not Democrats. You cannot be a Democrat and support a pact that in essence consents to the Colombian government's terrible record of killing trade unionists and human rights activists.
It is a pro-corporatist trade agreement that, as Jonathan Tasini explains, "Foreign investor rights—-a typical pro-corporate, so-called "free trade," measure—-would tighten the grip that large corporations have on the country’s natural resources and launch a large-scale plundering of those resources such as timber and minerals."
He continues, "The upshot: the so-called "free trade" deal would likely displace hundreds of thousands of poor rural Colombians from their lands, sending them into far deeper economic despair—and forcing many of them to work for the very groups that violently displaced them from their lands. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs conducted a study of the effects of the 1990s economic "liberalization" and concluded that such a move led to a 35 per cent drop in employment. You can be sure that the proposed so-called "free trade" deal will wreak similar havoc.
"But, because a lot of money is at stake—money for large corporations who want to exploit cheaper labor—no one should assume that this agreement is dead (after all, NAFTA only passed, ushering in a new era of so-called "free trade" deals", because Bill Clinton cut a whole host of deals to buy Congressional Democratic votes).
"The tactics of the pro so-called "free trade" advocates are amazingly consistent: trot out statistics, numbers and arguments that are outright lies. That has proven to be the case with virtually every so-called "free trade" deal passed since NAFTA. The Columbia agreement is no different."
Shalala, McLarty, and Panetta may call themselves Democrats but they do not believe in Democratic principles, so they are not real Democrats.
The conclusion of the NYTimes article is priceless:
“ 'This is a very difficult issue for Democrats,' said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat who is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. 'The way the administration has handled it has made it more difficult.' ”
Emanuel, the Clintonite hack who helped ram NAFTA through Congress, calls this a difficult issue for Democrats? It is not difficult for real Democrats. Their answer to the Colombia Trade Pact is a resounding no.
Only phony Democrats like Emanuel will vote with the Republicans against trade unions and human rights.
However, this article in the NYTimes is sickening and inspired me to write once again about the pact.
Besides Clintonite Mark Penn, "A long list of former Clinton administration aides, including Mack McLarty, the former counsel to the president; Donna E. Shalala, the health and human services secretary; and Leon E. Panetta, the onetime chief of staff, also have come out in support of the deal. It puts them in alliance with Mr. Bush and Republican leaders."
These people are not Democrats. You cannot be a Democrat and support a pact that in essence consents to the Colombian government's terrible record of killing trade unionists and human rights activists.
It is a pro-corporatist trade agreement that, as Jonathan Tasini explains, "Foreign investor rights—-a typical pro-corporate, so-called "free trade," measure—-would tighten the grip that large corporations have on the country’s natural resources and launch a large-scale plundering of those resources such as timber and minerals."
He continues, "The upshot: the so-called "free trade" deal would likely displace hundreds of thousands of poor rural Colombians from their lands, sending them into far deeper economic despair—and forcing many of them to work for the very groups that violently displaced them from their lands. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs conducted a study of the effects of the 1990s economic "liberalization" and concluded that such a move led to a 35 per cent drop in employment. You can be sure that the proposed so-called "free trade" deal will wreak similar havoc.
"But, because a lot of money is at stake—money for large corporations who want to exploit cheaper labor—no one should assume that this agreement is dead (after all, NAFTA only passed, ushering in a new era of so-called "free trade" deals", because Bill Clinton cut a whole host of deals to buy Congressional Democratic votes).
"The tactics of the pro so-called "free trade" advocates are amazingly consistent: trot out statistics, numbers and arguments that are outright lies. That has proven to be the case with virtually every so-called "free trade" deal passed since NAFTA. The Columbia agreement is no different."
Shalala, McLarty, and Panetta may call themselves Democrats but they do not believe in Democratic principles, so they are not real Democrats.
The conclusion of the NYTimes article is priceless:
“ 'This is a very difficult issue for Democrats,' said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat who is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. 'The way the administration has handled it has made it more difficult.' ”
Emanuel, the Clintonite hack who helped ram NAFTA through Congress, calls this a difficult issue for Democrats? It is not difficult for real Democrats. Their answer to the Colombia Trade Pact is a resounding no.
Only phony Democrats like Emanuel will vote with the Republicans against trade unions and human rights.
Posted by Kaz at 4/8/2008 12:15 PM 
Categories: labor, Global Engagement, Clinton, Foreign Policy, Congress
Categories: labor, Global Engagement, Clinton, Foreign Policy, Congress
Comments