For seven years, Democrats
have rightfully complained that President Bush has gratuitously
antagonized the world, exasperating our allies and eroding
America’s standing and influence.
But now the Democrats are doing the same thing on trade.
In Latin America, it is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
who are seen as the go-it-alone cowboys, by opposing the
United States’ free-trade agreement with Colombia.
Some Democrats claim that they are against the pact because
Colombia has abused human rights. Those concerns are legitimate
— but they shouldn’t be used to punish people
like Norma Reynosa, a 35-year-old woman who just may snip
the flowers that go into the Mother’s Day bouquet
that you buy.
Human rights aren’t abstract to Ms. Reynosa. Two of
her relatives were killed in the brutal warfare and insecurity
that plague her home region in Colombia’s South. A
third was killed by a land mine, and a fourth was kidnapped
at age 12 to work for guerrillas in the National Liberation
Army, or the ELN. Ms. Reynosa ran a small restaurant but
had to flee when the guerrillas demanded that she pay more
extortion money than she could afford.
“They said they would kill us,” she recalled.
“They didn’t say how. Mostly they just shot
people and threw their bodies in the river.”
So in June 2005, Ms. Reynosa and her husband abandoned their
home and fled to the outskirts of the capital to see if
they could get jobs in the booming flower industry. Colombian
cities like Medellín were the most dangerous cities
in the world in the 1980s and ’90s, but now they are
thriving and homicide rates are well below those of some
American cities.
One reason is those bouquets you buy, entering duty-free
from Colombia. These days Colombia is the world’s
second-largest exporter of flowers after the Netherlands,
and almost 200,000 people work in the flower industry. Up
to 28 cargo planes a day carry flowers from Colombia to
the U.S.
Better carnations than cocaine, no?
Critics of the free-trade pact worry that it would hurt
American workers. But Colombian goods already enter the
U.S. duty-free; what would change is that American exporters
would get access to the Colombian market.
(Colombia is pushing hard for the pact not because of any
immediate trade benefit but because its duty-free access
to the U.S. must be regularly renewed. Businesses are reluctant
to invest in flower farms or garment factories unless they
know that they will be able to export to the U.S. for many
years to come.)
Some Democrats point out that Colombia’s government
has been tied to paramilitary units that kill union members.
It was important for Democrats to raise these concerns —
forcing the Colombian government to crack down on paramilitaries
and prosecute those who murder unionists.
But Colombia’s progress has been immense. Assassinations
of union members, while still a problem, have fallen 80
percent since 2002. Last year, the murder rate for union
members was 4 per 100,000, reaching levels far below the
homicide rate for the general public.
As she clips flowers in a vast greenhouse, Ms. Reynosa knows
that her future depends on access to the American market.
She agrees that Colombia has human-rights problems, but
she argues passionately that the free-trade agreement is
the way to register continued improvements. More trade will
mean more jobs and more security and human rights, she argues.
The last few years have seen enormous gains in security
and the quality of life in Colombia — and that’s
why President Álvaro Uribe has an 85 percent approval
rating.
I asked President Uribe on Monday if there was concern among
Latin leaders that Democrats in Congress are tugging the
U.S. away from its historic commitment to free trade. He
said bluntly: “I don’t want to imagine this
scenario. It would be devastating for the good relationship
between the United States and our region.”
To their credit, a large group of prominent Democrats from
previous administrations have strongly endorsed the trade
accord, declaring that it is “in both our vital national
security and economic interests.” But the presidential
candidates aren’t listening.
Democrats instinctively criticize Mr. Bush when he harms
America’s standing in the world. That’s easy.
But a test of intellectual honesty is your willingness to
hold your own side to the same standard and to point out
pandering in those politicians you normally admire.
One of President Bush’s most costly actions was his
flat rejection of the Kyoto climate treaty; it symbolized
a my-way-or-the-highway approach that bolstered anti-Americanism
around the world. If the Colombia free-trade pact is rejected
and the U.S. backs away from its commitment to expanding
trade, that may be the Democrats’ equivalent of Kyoto,
signaling a retreat from internationalism.
It would be seen as the United States thumbing its nose
at the world
I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground,
and join me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/kristof. |
Select a Florist
