HorsesAss.on free trade and drugs.

Lee cites Obama:

“The violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these types of agreements,” Mr. Obama said at a meeting of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO in Philadelphia."

Lee then goes on to say "This administration still equates dissent over their economic philosophy with the threat of terrorism. And because of this, Colombia finds itself increasingly more isolated for their willingness to be our close ally as the rest of South America grows more and more anti-American and anti-capitalist.

Lee, great analysis!

But then things get, IMHO, a biot dicey.

As for Congressman 401, his excursion to Colombia was probably a good way to take his mind off of the fact that Darcy Burner is getting a lot of very good press for her work on the Responsible Plan to get out of Iraq. We need a Responsible Plan for Colombia too, but it doesn’t involve rewarding the Colombian government with a free trade agreement at a time when they’re moving the region closer to conflict.

Is this HA Darcy vs. Haircutparty line?

WADR to our little Montlake Social Club, the "RP" has NOT gotten much press outside of doctrinaire liberal circles. Not a single elected rep has adopted it. None of our own delegation has spoken out in Darcy's support.

One reason for the lack of support may be the role of General Eaton, a very high adviser to Clinton. I suspect it is because of Gen. Eaton's role that the RP is bereft of exactly the elements DB might have contributed .. that is specifics about how to get out. As pointed out by both HRC and BHO .. Iraq is SO unstable that no plan makes sense this far ahead.

Whither "Mission Accomplished?"

The minimum I would have liked to see in the RP is a thought about what we want to achieve AFTER withdrawal. Without that, the RP gives me nightmare visions of Hillary and Barack (to be impartial) standing on the deck of the Carrier Bush, three years from now declaring Mission Accomplished!

What mission?
What goal?
What would we like to achieve by, as BHO says, "A SMART getting out?"

Segue

It seems to me the same issue applies in Columbia. I trust the Bush admin about as much as I would a car built in Afghanistan. So, lets get this treaty trashed or at least delayed until the adults take over. But what then? What are our goals in Columbia????

I have an answer but it is one that neither Obama nor Hillary and certainly not McCain can accept now. My answer is that our goal should be world wide normalization of the value of labor. ALL the laws of economics say that one can not "protect" a market. If Chinese workers can turn out widgets at a labor cost of $5 and the labor in the USA id going to cost $20, the ONLY choices that exist is to subsidize the American laborer using one form or another of taxation or lose the job.

Thems the facts, them facts hurt. But .. the same facts that American workers rightly fear have an intriguing implication for a peasant farmer in Columbia. Why grow poppies if there are better, regular jobs? How many Colombians would rather work for the cartel than for Boeing?

Of course Barack ain't gonna get on the tube and say, "We can eliminate the drug trade by providing American jobs to Colombians." As an Obamite, however, I believe that he knows this is the only answer.

In the long run, the US, like the Soviet Union, Britain, and other imperial powers, can NOT survive on the backs of other peoples. The Columbian worker MUST be able to compete with the US worker on a fair basis. Her only alternatives, if we try to discriminate against the Colombians, are war of one kind or another. Hell, maybe we should be grateful that the drug war takes fewer lives than an insurrection from the south?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, where to go?

I believe that Obama is a realistic idealist. To get to some sort on anti-colonial, world wide equity we need to secure our own economy by means that offer the peasants in Mexico the same sense of upward progress we hear about as the incentive for peace in rural China. This means, above all, free trade. As Lee says, we should also protect democracy, environment and labor rights as a condition of that trade.

The latter, however, is BIG hole in the Bush excuse for a trade policy. Leaving aside China's colonialist behavior toward Tibet, the fact remains that Chinese corporations do not operate in a free market. In effect American workers are competing against China, Inc. where the Army is no different from Lenovo.

So, it seems to me that we need to rethink our trade policies to do two things:

1. assure that the market is as fair and flat as possible (even when our own workers are hurt).

2. structure own economy to be as efficient as possible.

THEN we won't have a drug issue.