Cato vs. truth: FTA

For my speech at the dc People's Media Center I had five minutes to write a coherent speech on unions and collective organizing. It was recorded onto a cd which i get next week to critique myself. Not sure if i want to listen to it... but it should be interesting none the less. The idea that has been on my mind is one of poverty, unionizing, labor in general. I couldn't help but to order a new bok about female immigrant labor in the U.S. and the fight for living wages. This struggle is intimately connected cheap labor in other countries as well. Yes, a Honduran worker can make more off two dollars per hour here than in their home country, but does this justify it? What kind of system allows this to exist? continuing with my on going project in search of rejecting these ideals of human rights on the basis of logic and facts, I have been reading the Cato Institute publication in support of the Colombian Free Trade agreement. I was hoping for a challenge...
General contradiction: If free trade agreements are supposed to embody less government restrictions and more liberty - if the majority of the people in a country oppose it - isn't this the pinnicle of Big Government? To styfle free speech, protests and dissent, the government signs an agreement that is overwhelmingly opposed by its citizens. Sounds suspiciously like a dictatorship. -not support of liberty...

Problem One: Factually incorrect
1.Graphs of trade unionists killed. Stats from "colombian military and defense" and "Colombian military of social protection" but these two government sources don't even give the same numbers. The government shouldn't be so obvious when it is lying. example - first graph attempts to show that the number of trade unionist killings have gone down since uribe took office: listing 196 killed in 2002. Graph two shows that 205 were killed rather than 196 -because it makes the percentage drop larger. Amnesty International reports that in 2005 73 trade unionists were killed - Cato says 49.

False: "In the early 1990s, right-wing paramilitary groups were formed by landowners to battle the left-wing guerrillas." Fact: They were created in 1980.
-False: "In the mid 1990s, once the drug cartels were dismantled, both guerillas and paramilitary groups moved into the nar­cotics business." Fact: US war on drugs began in the 1980's which was also a counterinsurgency operation. The drug cartels partnered up with paramilitaries to fight the guerrillas. FARC also at this time began instituting 'taxes' on farmers who grew it in exchange for their protection. The idea that neither were involved until mid 1990's even contradicts US propaganda from the 80's. Lieing about a lie? That's a new one.
-Even if just one single fact is false it discredits the arguement. Since almost every single political claim is either an outright falsehood or a distortion I think it suffices to say that Cato is bullshit.

Allow us to continue.
"Furthermore, it would increase unemployment by 1.8 per­centage points, representing a net loss of 460,000 jobs. GDP would go down 4.5 percent, and the poverty level would rise by 1.4 points"
"It is not in the U.S. interest to inflict this kind of eco­nomic punishment on an ally in the Andean region. Left-wing populism is fueled by poverty and lack of opportuni­ties, as can be easily seen in neighboring Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia." Interesting that poverty and lack of opportunity is cited. Given that the stat that povery would go down is rejected by almost all human rights and labor groups.

"Then we also have the political significance of rejecting the FTA, which has already been approved by the Colombian Congress and is supported by a majority of Colombians."

- What do Colombians say? from the Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca:
"To declare that the popular consultation on FTA is not a rejection of 'free trade' but of the form and content of this process and of the proposed treaty for its anti-democratic character, its lack of transparency, and its intention of annexation, displacement, and impoverishment of the population of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru."
- In Cauca:
"Ninety-eight percent of the people responded NO to the following question: "Are you in favor of the FTA between Colombia and the United States?" The people expressed their sovereign and conscious decision. Since that first consultation, others have been carried out throughout Colombia, all with the same result."
- one of the largest marches in Colombian history took place against the FTA
- "In Bogota, a million and a half people marched in what was described as the popular referendum against the FTA."

Although the point of this is not to present the case against it, which would take many many more pages, but to show once again that Cato is presenting false information -that the majority of Colombians support it and that Democrats are rejecting the wishes of the Colombian people.

tidbits;
"More than half of our $9.3 billion in imports from Colombia in 2006 were petroleum and coal."

America’s most competitive exports to Colombia in 2006, comprising more than 40 percent of U.S. goods sold there, were manufactured products such as drilling and oil-field equipment, excavating machinery, computers and com­puter accessories, telecommunications equipment, and med­ical equipment."

Amnesty says:
"Colombia’s wealth in water and mining, oil and gas, coupled with increased privatization of important parts of these industries, has attracted major transnational corporations to the country. Trade unionists in these sectors have faced repeated human rights violations, often because of their opposition to privatization. "

Cato says:
(CUT)"Free trade is killing us as much as bullets are."8 Equating peaceful, volun­tary trade with murdering bullets is a gross comparison that shows the ideological agenda behind much of the opposition to an FTA" Free trade IS the bullets. This is the crux. This is the ideological difference I have with Cato. I don't believe you need to murder people to make money. It is not by chance that trade unions are targeted. They represent opposition to not only the trade policies, but the industries that thrive off it. Such as taking people's land, murdering the leadership of the mining union, and then giving a contract to a large multinational mining company. Or oil company. Or flower corporation. same scenario. Free trade thrives and survives through coercion and the lack of freedom. Trade is not peaceful when people are killed. Cato, do you understand this?
- to be edited at some point in the future