I have little knowledge and therefore no settled opinion on what the murder rate among Colombian trade unionists says about the wisdom of ratifying a free trade pact with that country, but the debate between Chris Hayes, Ezra Klein on the one hand (with Matt chiming in) and Alex Massie and Edward Schumacher-Matos on the other is well worth your time.
« The Worst President Ever? | Main | Dreams From My Bloggingheads »
Death and the Trade Unionist
07 Apr 2008 05:48 pm
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://38.118.71.136/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/20488
Comments (39)
The American left's positions against Colombia and President Uribe steam me. The progress Colombia has made in this decade is near miraculous. As the Schumacher-Moss article shows for the millionth time is that union leaders are safer than the average Colombian. Uribe has won two free and fair elections and is overwhelmingly popular in Colombia. Pulling the rug out from under President Uribe would be a strong message that being an American ally is worthless. Is this how Democrats think that the United States will gain popularity? Would they rather Colombia fall to a Chavez style authoritarian who's essentially a puppet of FARC?
Colombia is in civil war and has random kidnappings because we insist on drug prohibition. Uribe has done a terrible job because he hasn't stopped the violence, and he can't stop the violence without standing up to the United States and legalizing the drug trade, which he refuses to do.
VaGuy,
Well, _I_ would like to see Colombia fall to a Chavez style leader (I'm a very strong partisan on Chavez in case that wasn't clear). I don't think I'm very typical of the Democrats though. And obviously, a Chavez style leader wouldn't be a puppet of the FARC- he would be an alternative to the FARC, carrying out the same kind of policies that they would like to, and probably eliminating their base of support at the same time. There probably wouldn't be a FARC in a socialist Colombia, much like the communist guerrilla activity in Peru dried up during the years (1968-1975) that it was ruled by Chavez' hero, General Velasco.
You should look more closely into the kind of revolution that Chavez is pushing vs. the kind that the FARC would like to see- revolution from above vs. revolution from below.
Dilan,
The drug trade has corrupted FARC and turned them into largely a criminal enterprise, and it has spawned the rise of several even bloodier factions on the right, but it wasn't the cause of Colombia's civil war. Colombia has been in a state of civil war since the early 1950s, between more or less the same forces of Right and Left, and with plenty of brutality. This isn't a new thing.
Moreover, I agree with you that spraying the coca fields is a bad idea and that we shouldn't require other countries to pay the price of our drug problems. But that doesn't mean that anyone should legalize _the drug trade_ which is a loathsome abomination. The US should by all means continue to fight and intensify the war on drugs, but we should focus on within our own borders.
Hector,
Your continued zeal for leftist authoritarians is baffling. Whatever the claims of their rhetoric, their results tend to be awful for their own people. This is of a piece with your comments on the Zimbabwe thread on Yglesias's site, where you suggested that it was "corruption" that lead to the widespread economic disaster and misery there, not the implementation of Mugabe's disasterous political ideology itself.
But that doesn't mean that anyone should legalize _the drug trade_ which is a loathsome abomination. The US should by all means continue to fight and intensify the war on drugs, but we should focus on within our own borders.
I didn't say that we should legalize the drug trade. I said that Colombia should. As long as drugs are illegal, groups like the FARC (which I agree are loathesome) will continue to fund narcoterrorism based on the proceeds of illegal drug sales.
Nobody's defending the FARC. The point is, Colombia's problems are going to be endless as long as they attempt to do the bidding of the US. Evo Morales has figured this out in Bolivia. No country with vast coca or poppy fields can afford to have its drug policy dicated by the US.
Fascist Fred tells Hector: "Your continued zeal for leftist authoritarians is baffling. Whatever the claims of their rhetoric, their results tend to be awful for their own people. This is of a piece with your comments on the Zimbabwe thread on Yglesias's site, where you suggested that it was "corruption" that lead to the widespread economic disaster and misery there, not the implementation of Mugabe's disasterous political ideology itself."
Yeah, Hector, you should just have zeal for right-wing authoritarians, like Fred does!
Fred's pretense that he cares about "their own people" is exceptionally hilarious, since he continues to lead cheers for the murders of Iraqis under the tender mercies of Dumbya, and wants Iran to be next.
Of course Hector is sort of nuts here, as he has defended the Castro regime for its refusal to allow people to leave Cuba. That's just ridiculous. It may not be the worst offense of the Castro regime, but it's such a blatant violation of individual primacy that it stands out.
Dilan writes: "As long as drugs are illegal, groups like the FARC (which I agree are loathesome) will continue to fund narcoterrorism based on the proceeds of illegal drug sales.
Nobody's defending the FARC. The point is, Colombia's problems are going to be endless as long as they attempt to do the bidding of the US. Evo Morales has figured this out in Bolivia. No country with vast coca or poppy fields can afford to have its drug policy dicated by the US."
Quite true. The huge demand for expensive cocaine in the US is what creates narcoterrorism in Colombia. Our Insane War On Drugs doesn't work and can't work as currently constituted.
This is an issue where the Dems and the Repigs are equally demented, playing to suburban "for the kids" votes while pursuing a policy which is just making criminals rich.
Moe,
Fred is obviously a fascist freak but we don't know for sure it's the same guy who defended the Iraq war. There are so many 'Freds' posting on this and Yglesias' blog that it gets a bit confusing. Honestly, they should use initials.
The obvious counterargument to Fred is that there have been many socialist countries which implemented more sweeping land reform and nationalizations than Mugabe ever did. They had their problems, including generally a lack of political freedom, so you might or might not think it was worth the price. However, they didn't generally turn into basket cases like Zimbabwe.
I don't believe that I ever denied that Cuba has many violations of individual freedom. I think on balance that most of those violations are worth it though. (I do acknowledge though that they committed some abuses in the '60s and '70s.) Moe, would you rather be a poor peasant in Cuba or in Colombia?
Dilan,
I don't think that Colombia should legalize the drug trade, it would be a disaster. But I would agree that they should pursue the drug war in the way and to the degree that they see fit, and not do whatever we tell them. I don't see that spraying peasant fields is the right way to go about it.
The FARC wasn't _originally_ loathsome, it became loathsome largely when it was tempted to enter the drug trade, a temptation that it accepted. It's loathsome but I don't know if it's much _more_ loathsome than the government and certainly _less_ loathsome than the right wing paramilitaries (judging purely by the number of atrocities committed).
There's no really _good_ actors in the Colombian scene right now which is why they need some outside general to come in and do a Velasco.
ross, are you sure it's not the drug lords that are killing these union leaders?
Well, _I_ would like to see Colombia fall to a Chavez style leader (I'm a very strong partisan on Chavez in case that wasn't clear).
Well you're out of your goddamn mind then.
The FARC wasn't _originally_ loathsome, it became loathsome largely when it was tempted to enter the drug trade, a temptation that it accepted. It's loathsome but I don't know if it's much _more_ loathsome than the government and certainly _less_ loathsome than the right wing paramilitaries (judging purely by the number of atrocities committed).
The FARC and paramilitaries are equivalently loathesome, and have been for their entire existences, to anyone who has respect for democracy, individual rights, or rule of law. Of course your previous statement demonstrates you have none of those things, so it's not surprising that you hold this view.
The point is, Colombia's problems are going to be endless as long as they attempt to do the bidding of the US. Evo Morales has figured this out in Bolivia.
If you'd rather live in Bolivia under Morales than in Colombia under Uribe, you're either nuts or don't know anything about what's going on in those countries.
Are Chris and Ezra aware that business owners get kidnapped and killed in Colombia all the time?
Clearly not. And they're embarrassing themselves in the process.
Everyone should read Schumacher-Matos's op-ed for valuable context. Stupid charts can be painfully misleading.
The mistake Chris and Ezra are making is to focus on one alarming and possibly misleading statistic at the expense of the big picture. And the big picture is that trade advocates continually drop big, fat dogmatic drivel-bombs on anyone with the temerity to question the wisdom of free trade agreements with dangerously unstable and highly impoverished nations.
Here's Massie: "...is it really enough to justify rejecting a trade deal and, consequently, doing something to make it harder for working class Colombians and trade unionists to, well, earn a living?"
Well no, you twit, but there are dozens of other reasons to reject a trade deal that is unlikely to do deliver on your false promises.
This is the black art of neoliberal politics. Once you've defined the free movement of capital as "free trade" and concluded that this policy is practically perfect in every way, then there is no reason good enough to reject a free trade agreement with another nation, and to do so would naturally be a grave insult to the people of said nation.
Especially rancid is his blunt, evidence-free assertion that rejecting this deal will make it harder for working class Colombians to earn a living. Because, gosh, we all know that NAFTA has been a gigantic boon for the Mexican working class.
Free trade among equals and near-equals, as in the European Community, is a very different beast from "free trade" between a rich nation and a poor one, particularly when capital may move freely but people may not. It promotes a consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of both nations' investor classes and weakens the negotiating position of laborers in both nations.
That Colombia is a major source of narcotics, black market firearms, abusive labor practices, and God-knows-what-else might also be points worth considering on the question of whether it's in the best interest of OUR working class to trade freely with Colombia.
Re: Of course your previous statement demonstrates you have none of those things, so it's not surprising that you hold this view.
"Democracy", "rule of law" and "individual rights" tend to be slogans that mean, in effect, "liberal capitalism". So no, I have no respect for any of those things as they are generally interpreted in practice.
Whether democracy _in principle_ is a good system is an interesting philosophical question which I won't address here. Actually existing liberal capitalism is quite another story, and I definitely don't like it.
I consider myself fairly well educated about Latin American history and I'd say that I would very much prefer to live in Bolivia under Morales than in Colombia under Uribe. I would much prefer to be in a socialist state under construction than in a country where people with my politics would probably get shot, and where the ruling president can see nothing better than to be a lapdog of the United States. Of course you appear to be a big cheerleader for liberal capitalism so you probably disagree.
"I would much prefer to be in a socialist state under construction..."
So you could delude yourself that a decent state is around the corner, even though the same leftist totalitarian promises of utopia always come to grief. Leftwing autocracies have an awful track record when it comes to human rights, quality of life, etc. Radical collectivism, violation of property rights, etc., don't lead to prosperity for anyone, except for the autocrat and a handful of his cronies. Venezuela's economy is worse off under Chavez despite $100 per barrel oil. None of his collectivist enterprise experiments in the hinterlands are economically viable (he just forces PDVSPA to buy knicknacks and t-shirts from them, instead of making more productive investments). Meat and milk are scarce in Venezuelan stores, etc.
Why you think this is superior to democracy and capitalism, I have no idea.
If you'd rather live in Bolivia under Morales than in Colombia under Uribe, you're either nuts or don't know anything about what's going on in those countries.
Right:
Of course I wouldn't want to live in Bolivia, because it is very poor. I also wouldn't want to live in Colombia, because it is more dangerous despite being wealthier than Bolivia.
But that's not the point. Bolivia's poverty is a given. Certainly the right wing governments didn't alleviate it-- in fact, what they did was make corrupt gas contracts with big kickbacks which did nothing for the vast numbers of poor Bolivians.
The point is, given that a pretty large percentage of Bolivians in certain parts of the country are coca farmers (as is true in Colombia), simply doing everything the US wants to do in terms of coca eradication, criminalizing even non-narcotic uses of coca, etc., condemns large portions of the country to even more extreme poverty and greases the skids for social foment, which can take the form of Evo's movement of cocaleros but which can also take the form of cynical FARC terrorism.
Morales at least recognizes the problem. The US, of course, is going to make it very hard for him to solve it. But that speaks badly of the US and it's "my way or the highway" approach to the drug war (which is a result of US consumption of drugs and is our fault, not South America's) rather than speaking badly of Morales.
Fred:
Venezuela is a train wreck waiting to happen, because Chavez isn't investing enough in oil infrastructure and is inflating the currency. However, you can't look at economic growth figures alone in Latin America; these countries are very unequal and big growth can conceal extreme poverty. Chavez has been VERY good for poor people who got screwed by previous governments. The problem is finding someone who marries Chavez's concern for spreading the oil wealth around with the better business sense of his right wing opponents.
Dilan,
Since I write occasionally for an online publication dedicated to Venezuela, let me add something to what you say.
One might add that the reason meat and milk are often off the shelves is because more people are buying them. Food consumption was up 16% in 2007 over the year before (and substantially above the 1990s, of course). This includes staples like chicken, meat, rice, etc. To the extent that food production hasn't risen as fast as consumption, part of the problem is that much of the land is still in the hands of wealthy landowners who are notoriously inefficient (as concentrated land ownbership tends to be all over LA). Venezuela needs to speed up the expropriation of large estates and invest in cooperative and smallholder agriculture.
REal income for the poorest sectors D and E is up 130% over what it was in 1998. The Gini coefficient for Venezuela is also substantially lower that it was before Chavez (from about 0.50 to 0.42). Venezuela now has lower inequality than the United States. Inflation is also lower than it was before Chavez (that said, it's higher than it should be).
Obviously the government is not doing as well as they could be given the oil windfall, in part this is a symptom of not proceeding fast enough with reconstructing the economy on a socialist basis. Chavez is still a better leader _by far_ then any other leader in the region.
Of course one should also point out that the goal of socialism is not fundamentally either prosperity or freedom, so I would be in favor of Chavez even if Venezuela had not been doing so well economically, but that's a separate issue. Venezuela is in the process of creating a society that goes beyond greed and self interest, and in which people are socialized to desire the common good and to work for the benefit of society instead of themselves. That would assuredly be worth giving up a certain degree of prosperity and a very great degree of freedom. The aim of socialism is human brotherhood and an ideal of virtue, more than prosperity and much more than freedom.
The problem, Hector, is that investing in the oil infrastructure is very important, because without it, oil revenues will contract in the future and Chavez will not be able to keep it up.
Further, he really isn't pursuing a sound money policy. Like many leftists in Latin America, he doesn't care about the importance of monetary policy. This is the sort of thing that eventually led to hyperinflation in other parts of South America.
Tina Rosenberg, an excellent reporter, had a nice article about all of this in the New York Times Magazine a few months ago. What Latin America has such difficulty producing is a leader who understands that you can't simply run a government for the benefit of the rich (as right wing regimes so often do) and you also can't ignore the importance of sound money and investments in the future (as left wing regimes so often do). Of course, it doesn't help things that the US, for financial and imperialistic reasons, is always pushing the governments to move right without regard for the problems of corruption and inattention to poverty.
But that speaks badly of the US and it's "my way or the highway" approach to the drug war (which is a result of US consumption of drugs and is our fault, not South America's) rather than speaking badly of Morales.
I think you're being uncharitable here. Both the US and Colombia have a significant interest in minimizing the drug trade. Both the supply side and demand side bear responsibility for it.
I hardly see why you think it would be some sort of panacea for Colombia to legalize cocaine. Cocaine is illegal everywhere in the world, as far as I know, so to legalize it would alienate not just the US but every other country by flooding their borders with Colombia-sponsored contraband. Additionally, to the extent foreign countries can successfully keep the cocaine out, legalization will fill Colombia with cheap, plentiful legal cocaine for domestic consumption. Every other society in the world has independently decided that cocaine addiction is a social negative. Why would Colombia disagree?
I think you're being uncharitable here. Both the US and Colombia have a significant interest in minimizing the drug trade. Both the supply side and demand side bear responsibility for it.
I don't see this at all. Under principles of economics that date back to David Ricardo, nation-states will sell what is comparatively advantageous for them to sell. Telling a country that it can't sell its coca is therefore making that country agree to be poorer for our benefit. That's doubly insulting when the country is already much poorer than we are.
We, not they, bear responsibility for the drug problem.
Finally, while it is true that backing off of drug enforcement will probably create a few more addicts in Colombia, you need to understand that cocaine isn't exactly a popular drug down there even though it is fairly readily available. Rather, they chew coca leaves and brew them into tea. It's a subtler high.
So it is doubtful that they will suffer much from a more confrontational policy with the US. And other governments don't care about this nearly as much as we do (nor does Colombia supply nearly as much to Europe as it does to the US anyway). What it will do is end the FARC and raise the standard of living of peasant coca farmers. That's the right thing to do-- indeed, the entire Uribe policy amounts to screwing over the peasants to benefit the upper classes who can profit from trade with the US.
Dilan,
Yeah it would be nice if Chavez invested more in oil infrastructure. But the priority for investment should be agriculture and manufacturing (textiles, shoes, etc.) not oil. Oil is, of course, not a labor intensive industry and it creates unhealthy distortions in the economy- Venezuela needs to produce things other than oil. Venezuela needs to employ more of its people, and to be self sufficient in more of its goods, and for that it needs to invest in labor intensive sectors. The proposed 36-hour workweek last year would have been a disaster and I'm almost happy that the constitutional reform was defeated just for that reason.
There's no reason that a country with tons of fertile virgin lands like Venezuela should have so much farmland lying idle and have to import much of its food, as well as other industrial goods.
The FARC won't 'end' if cocaine were legalized (as you would favor) or if the US cracked down on the demand side (as I would favor). It will continue in some form or other until the conditions that gave it rise are gone- and given that it's been around for 50 years, that will take a while. Without cocaine the FARC would be much weaker and less of a threat, but they would still exist- they might get money from China or Iran, the same way they used to get money from Cuba.
The FARC won't 'end' if cocaine were legalized (as you would favor) or if the US cracked down on the demand side (as I would favor). It will continue in some form or other until the conditions that gave it rise are gone- and given that it's been around for 50 years, that will take a while. Without cocaine the FARC would be much weaker and less of a threat, but they would still exist- they might get money from China or Iran, the same way they used to get money from Cuba.
Not likely, because Iran and China don't give a hoot about what is going on in Colombia. The only reason that Iran cares about Venezuela is because the US is meddling down there.
Iran and China care about bloodying the nose of the United States. Any socialist insurgency in Latin America is for the foreseeable future going to be the enemy of U.S. influence there. Therefore Iran and China would see it as a tactical ally. Why else are they good friends with Belarus?
Dilan,
The US did not bully Colombia into banning cocaine. Colombia banned cocaine for the same reason every other country in the world did: it's bad shit. There's no other way to put it.
Keeping cocaine illegal is "screwing over the peasants to benefit the upper classes" only in the same way that banning the poor from knocking out random people and taking their money is doing the same. Sure some disadvantaged folks would be marginally better off, but the banned activities are genuinely harmful to society.
Right,
I agree with you, more or less. I would point out that chewing coca leaves is quite a different beast than snorting cocaine. Raw coca leaves is probably not much worse of a drug than coffee. The Andean peasants do _not_ want to be told that they can't grow and chew coca anymore. We could probably get them to stop, but we would need to make it really worth their while- it's a fairly big cultural sacrifice for them, maybe akin to asking a deer hunting family in America to surrender their hunting rifle. Maybe even greater.
But cocaine certainly needs to stay outlawed, and that's a fact.
ran and China care about bloodying the nose of the United States. Any socialist insurgency in Latin America is for the foreseeable future going to be the enemy of U.S. influence there.
If we started treating Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales the way we treat, say, Lula DaSilva or Michelle Bachelet, that would change.
The US did not bully Colombia into banning cocaine.
I didn't say we bullied them into banning cocaine. I said we bullied them into eradication policies and much greater enforcement-- including against NON-NARCOTIC USES OF COCA-- than the Colombian political system would tolerate.
And may I say that despite your user name "right", what you are arguing for here is extreme government power. You are saying that it is OK for one government to tell another sovereign government that its peasants must remain poor and not sell what they are most capable of selling. That may be many things, but it isn't free market economics.
Keeping cocaine illegal is "screwing over the peasants to benefit the upper classes" only in the same way that banning the poor from knocking out random people and taking their money is doing the same.
So you think growing a crop and selling it is the same as THEFT? Wow.
Let's just say that no economist in the world would agree with you. At best, coca growing is an activity with some negative externalities. It is not theft.
So you think growing a crop and selling it is the same as THEFT? Wow
That is not at all what I am saying. The theft example is only similar when you evaluate it the way you are evaluating the drug trade, with a very crude "who wins and who loses" analysis. Just because legalizing the drug trade would help some (not all or most) peasants in the short term, does not mean it's the right course of action, independent of what the US thinks.
You are saying that it is OK for one government to tell another sovereign government that its peasants must remain poor and not sell what they are most capable of selling.
I don't know where you think I said that. Additionally I would argue that the free trade agreement will help poor Colombians quite a bit, and far more than cocaine legalization ever would.
I would point out that chewing coca leaves is quite a different beast than snorting cocaine. Raw coca leaves is probably not much worse of a drug than coffee.
Yup, I agree with that. But no one's ever come up with a way to grow coca legally without most of it funneling to cocaine.
Additionally I would argue that the free trade agreement will help poor Colombians quite a bit, and far more than cocaine legalization ever would.
In related news, I would argue that being kicked in the teeth will help alleviate your back pain, and far more than a forged prescription for vicodin ever would.
Exactly how will free trade with a great power that massively subsidizes agriculture benefit poor Colombians? This is an especially risible claim when the country in question is committed to aerial bombardment of Colombia's most profitable cash crop.
Exactly how will free trade with a great power that massively subsidizes agriculture benefit poor Colombians?
Colombia's agriculture is primarily export-based: coffee, bananas, and flowers being among the main (legitimate) agricultural exports. None of those industries is threatened by imports from the US, for obvious climate-related reasons.
Where there will likely be some impact is in cheap consumer products and light manufacturing. This will probably cause some domestic producers to suffer a bit in the near term, but is more than outweighed by the benefits that cheaper goods, including industrial and transportation equipment that will bring more investment, refined fuel, and consumer products can bring to the economy.
Yup, I agree with that. But no one's ever come up with a way to grow coca legally without most of it funneling to cocaine.
But with all respect, that's a VERY big-government style argument. Basically you are saying that Bolivian peasants, many of whom live at very high altitudes and need to chew coca to alleviate the symptoms of saroche, altitude sickness, in order to go about their lives, must be denied that opportunity to take the medication that works for them because the wealthier citizens of a far-away country demand so much cocaine that most of the Bolivian coca will be diverted to that use and the wealthy country is powerful enough to throw its weight around and force Boivia to knuckle under.
If that's a principle that you think is worth defending, then I don't see what local control or national sovereignty Bolivia has left.
And by the way, I support the free trade agreements, but David Ricardo proved many years ago that if you exclude the products that a nation is comparatively advantaged in producing from your free trade agreements, you are, definitively, making that nation poorer.
Basically you are saying that Bolivian peasants, many of whom live at very high altitudes and need to chew coca to alleviate the symptoms of saroche, altitude sickness, in order to go about their lives, must be denied that opportunity to take the medication that works for them
I was talking about Colombia, a situation with which I am much more familiar. It is entirely possible on balance that it makes sense for Bolivia to legalize coca production.
David Ricardo proved many years ago that if you exclude the products that a nation is comparatively advantaged in producing from your free trade agreements, you are, definitively, making that nation poorer.
Fine, but only in the same sense that by excluding, say, assault weapons from the FTA it is also making the US poorer.
The point is there are massive negative externalities involved with the production of these goods that cannot be ignored. Even in Colombia alone (without regard to the US) that externality is so great that it would not make sense to accept it.
Additionally, that externality's impact on the US is precisely why the US provided $1.5B towards Plan Colombia. The result of that effort, and other great strides by the Colombian people, is a Colombia that is safer, more prosperous, and more secure than it has been in decades, and one of the most successful South American stories of the last ten years.
Additionally, that externality's impact on the US is precisely why the US provided $1.5B towards Plan Colombia. The result of that effort, and other great strides by the Colombian people, is a Colombia that is safer, more prosperous, and more secure than it has been in decades, and one of the most successful South American stories of the last ten years.
That's not true, though. Colombia is not safe at all. Western businesspersons have to hire bodyguards there. Kidnappings are common. The FARC is still going strong. Some of the rural areas are war zones.
Colombia isn't one of the poorer countries in Latin America, and it still isn't. That much is true. But in terms of safety, it's definitely one of the least safe, and that's because the value of cocaine on the black market makes it worth narcotraffickers' while to employ militias and paramilitaries to defend their operations. Uribe gets a tactical victory every now and then, but he hasn't solved the problem or defeated the FARC or made the streets of Colombian cities safe for prosperous foreigners.
As for our $1.5 billion investment, that's kind of like saying we invested a ton of money in Vietnam in the 1960's and early 1970's. Spending a bunch of money on a guerilla war is hardly a foreign aid program.
That's not true, though. Colombia is not safe at all. Western businesspersons have to hire bodyguards there. Kidnappings are common. The FARC is still going strong. Some of the rural areas are war zones.
What did I say that's not true? Colombia is much, much safer than it was ten or twenty years ago. The streets of Medellin and Cali are more dangerous than, say, Buenos Aires, but are nothing like they were even five years ago, to say nothing of Escobar's heyday. I was in Medellin last summer as a "Western businessman" and walked around without a worry, even at night (albeit in the nicer areas of town). Cartagena is as safe as any city in the Caribbean.
Colombia still has a long way to go, it's crime rates are high by world standards, and the FARC, ELN, and paramilitaries are still around. But the trend lines are very encouraging, and to ignore that is to deny all the facts on the ground.
RE: Yup, I agree with that. But no one's ever come up with a way to grow coca legally without most of it funneling to cocaine.
Right,
You're probably correct. The problem is it's not going to be easy to get the Bolivians to give up their coca leaves. They would probably give it up if the price was right, and that's probably the way we are going to have to go. But we are going to have to _really_ make it worth their while. And yes, that means in terms of money.
Dilan,
I'm not a free trader by any means, but even if you are, to treat cocaine like just another economic good is truly to see the world through the blinkered economists' vision and to miss the bigger picture. No one has the moral right to knowingly produce and sell an addictive drug. Living in the Andes is probably one of the toughest things to do and I admire anyone who does, but you can do it without coca- the Tibetans do after all. I bet that the Bolivians would give up coca in a heartbeat if it meant, say, more fertilizer for their farms and a better market for their potatoes.
Morales isn't a bad person for not pursuing the drug war, he's just pursuing the narrow interest of his people, and not ours. Perfectly reasonable. if we want that to change, and we do, then we need to make it worth his while.
No one has the moral right to knowingly produce and sell an addictive drug.
I will await your attempt to put Starbucks out of business.
Dilan,
Don't be silly. I explicitly compared coffee to coca leaves above, and cocaine to purified caffeine. Of course people have a right to make and sell coffee, and in the strict sense they have a right to grow, chew, and sell coca leaves as well (although it would be better if they didn't). What you're talking about is the cocaine trade which is quite a different animal.
I will await your attempt to put Starbucks out of business.
I will await your evidence that coffee addiction has ever killed anyone, driven someone to violent crime to feed his or her fix, or sufficiently impaired anyone such that they were a danger to themselves and the public at large.
the mccain camp should be attacking the obama campaign on the colombian free trade issue. even the washington post thinks obama and clinton are dead wrong on this issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040903638.html
That political turf-staking, and the Democrats' decreasingly credible claims of a death-squad campaign against Colombia's trade unionists, constitutes all that's left of the case against the agreement. Economically, it should be a no-brainer -- especially at a time of rising U.S. joblessness. At the moment, Colombian exports to the United States already enjoy preferences. The trade agreement would make those permanent, but it would also give U.S. firms free access to Colombia for the first time, thus creating U.S. jobs. Politically, too, the agreement is in the American interest, as a reward to a friendly, democratic government that has made tremendous strides on human rights, despite harassment from Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.To be sure, President Bush provoked Ms. Pelosi. But he forced the issue only after months of inconclusive dickering convinced him that Democrats were determined to avoid a vote that would force them to accept accountability for opposing an agreement that is manifestly in America's interest. It turns out his suspicions were correct.
what pelosi is doing amounts to economic sabotage.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Are Chris and Ezra aware that business owners get kidnapped and killed in Colombia all the time? Colombia has lots of unsolved murders and a ridiculous murder rate. It isn't just a 'trade unionist' thing.
Posted by Sebastian | April 7, 2008 6:07 PM