There is a big strike in Colombia, and you probably donât know about it. Farmers and others are protesting over a variety of grievances including the devastating effect of free-trade agreements, privatization and inequality-driven poverty. Corporate-owned American media is not covering it. These trade agreements make the really rich really richer while outsourcing jobs to places where people canât object to the low pay and working conditions. This undercuts wages here. The end result is a race to the bottom.
TheÂ BBC is reportingÂ that 200,000 Colombian farmers are on strike in 11 of Colombiaâs 32 provinces. They are blocking roads, cutting off the central province. TheÂ Economist reportsÂ that âColombian miners, truckers, coffee growers, milk producers, public health-care workers, students and othersâ took to the streets on August 19.
Almost the only American outlet covering this strike is the Miami Herald.Â Last week the paper reported,
The agrarian strike, as itâs known, is broad-based and far-flung. Coffee, cacao, potato and rice farmers have joined ranks with cargo truckers, gold miners and others. Teachers and labor unions are also joining in. Their demands are equally ample, calling for reduced fuel and fertilizer prices, the cancellation of free trade agreements, increased subsidies and the end of a crackdown on informal mining operations, among others.
Reasons For Strike
Stone throwers clash with riot police as Colombian farmers demanding government subsidies and greater access to land block the road in La Calera, Cundinamarca department, on August 23. (EITAN ABRAMOVICH/AFP/Getty Images)
According to the Herald report free-trade agreements are part of the reason for the strike. âJavier Correa Velez, the head of a coffee-growers association called Dignidad Cafetera,â âŚ âHigh fuel prices, expensive agrichemicals, government neglect of rural areas and free trade agreements â without adequate safeguards â have made it impossible for farmers to compete, he said.â
AÂ Miami Herald report the next dayÂ also says that the strikers are demanding an end to free-trade agreements.
Common Dreams has more, inÂ Colombia Nationwide Strike Against âFree Trade,â Privatization, Poverty. Common Dreams reports, (click through for links)
â[The strike is a condemnation] of the situation in which the Santos administration has put the country, as a consequence of its terrible, anti-union and dissatisfactory policies,â declared the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT), the countryâs largest union, in a statement.
[. . .] Meanwhile, the Colombian government is handing out sweetheart deals to international mining companies while creating bans and roadblocks for Colombian miners. Likewise, the government is giving multinational food corporations access to land earmarked for poor Colombians. Healthcare workers are fighting a broad range of reforms aimed at gutting and privatizing Colombiaâs healthcare system. Truckers are demanding an end to low wages and high gas prices.
Labor Murders In Colombia
Labor âstrifeâ is not new to Colombia. In February, 2012 AFL-CIO President Richard TrumkaÂ sent a letterÂ asking President Obama to delay the implementation of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, because of continuing murders of labor activists.
The letter states that through January, one union member was killed by Colombian troops, a second was shot to death along with his wife, a third worker was âbrutally murderedâ and a fourth union member employed by the National Industry of Sodas (Coca-Cola) was âmurdered by gunfire.â
Over 2,900 union members have been murdered in Colombia over the last 25 yearsâŚ
TheÂ Common Dreams reportÂ drives this home,
Colombia is the deadliest country in the world for union activists, according to the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center, and 37 activists were murdered in Colombia in the 1st half of 2013 alone, leading news weekly Semana reports.
Effect Of US-Colombia Agreement
The US-Colombia Trade Agreement went into effect May, 2012. A year later The Nation carried the story,Â The Horrific Costs of the US-Colombia Trade AgreementÂ describing the consequences on Colombiaâs poor and farmers. The new agreement forces Colombian farmers âto compete against heavily subsidized US productsâ andÂ an Oxfam reportÂ estimates âthat the average income of 1.8 million grossly under-protected small farmers will fall by 16 percent.â âThe study concludes that 400,000 farmers who now live below the minimum wage will see their incomes drop by up to 70 percent and will thus be forced out of their livelihoods.â
And the threats and murders continue. According toÂ a May Public Citizen reportÂ on the effects of the recent Korea, Colombia and Panama trade agreements,
In the year after the launch of the Labor Action Plan, union members in Colombia received 471 death threats â exactly the same number as the average annual level of death threats in the two years before the Plan. At least 20 Colombian unionists were assassinated in 2012 according to the data relied upon under the Labor Action Plan, while the International Trade Union Confederation reported the assassination of 35 unionists. âŚ In addition, violent mass displacements of Colombians increased 83 percent in 2012 relative to 2011, when the U.S. Congress passed the FTA, adding to the five million Colombians who have been displaced in the worldâs largest internal displacement crisis.
The Colombian trade agreement is hurting Colombiaâs small farmers and they are reacting. They are pitted against Americaâs giant, industrialized, government-subsidized farms and losing the battle. And in America these giant, corporate farms largely only enrich the 1%, providing low wages for the rest and forcing smaller American farmers out of business as well.
Korea Free-Trade Agreement Already Costs 40,000 American Jobs
Our free-trade agreement with Colombia is not the only recent agreement that is not going so well for 99% of the people involved.Â The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported in JulyÂ that the US-Korea free trade agreement has already costs the US 40,000 jobs and increased our trade deficit by $5.8 billion. Already.
The tendency to distort trade model results was evident in the Obama administrationâs insistence that increasing exports under KORUS would support 70,000 U.S. jobs. The administration neglected to consider jobs lost from the increasing imports and a growing bilateral trade deficit. In the year after KORUS took effect, the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea increased by $5.8 billion, costing more than 40,000 U.S. jobs. Most of the 40,000 jobs lost were good jobs in manufacturing.
NAFTA Wiped Out Small Mexican Farmers, Sending Them North
This is similar to the after-effect of the NAFTA agreement that allowed US-subsidized corn into Mexican markets,Â wiping out many small farmers and sending them north desperately looking for work. NAFTA forced at least 4,000 pig farms under, losing 120,000 jobs. (China being the beneficiary, now buying American pork-producer Smithfield.) It helped increase rural poverty from 35% to 55%. Tobacco and coffee farmers also went under.
A Wilson Center report says NAFTA âSubsidized Inequality,â displacing âmany hundreds of thousands of small-scale corn producers.âÂ A McClatchy reportÂ estimates the number of Mexican corn-farming jobs lost atÂ 2 million, worsening illegal migration.
Then U.S. corn imports crested like a rain-swollen river, increasing from 7 percent of Mexican consumption to around 34 percent, mostly for animal feed and for industrial uses as cornstarch.
Meanwhile NAFTA didnât turn out so well for American workers, either. Estimates are that NAFTA hasÂ cost 700,000 American jobs, and a quick look at 1989?s Roger & Me shows what it did to cities and regions. Many of Detroitâs auto jobs have moved to Mexico, for example.
The Alliance for American Manufacturing has a state-by-state map of jobs lost to China (donât forget the more than 50,000 factories), with the introduction, âThe growth of the U.S. trade deficit with China since that country entered the World Trade Organization in 2001 has had a devastating effect on U.S. workers and the domestic economy. Between 2001 and 2011, 2.7 million U.S. jobs were lost or displaced.â
OurÂ trade deficit with ChinaÂ drained $26.9 billion from our economy just in the month of June. And that was actuallyÂ downÂ from 27.9 billion the month before.
No Jobs From Trade Deals
InÂ No Jobs from Trade PactsÂ EPIâs Robert Scott explains that the appeal of these job-killing trade dealsÂ is the job killing nature of the deals,
FTAs and other trade agreements make it enormously profitable to outsource production to countries such as South Korea and China that use currency manipulation, dumping, and other unfair trade practices to undercut production and wages in the United States. U.S. MNCs, including Apple, Boeing, Dell, Ford, GE, GM, and Intel have also profited enormously from outsourcing to Mexico, China, and other low-wage trade partners under the protection of FTAs and the WTO. The end result is a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions for most members of these agreements.
These trade agreements make the really rich really richer. They outsource jobs to places where people canât object to the low pay and working conditions. This undercuts wages here. The end result is a race to the bottom, while the 1% get richer and richer.
Free-trade proponents always promise jobs and prosperity, then later we get the bill. The promises sound great but the record is that only a wealthy few benefit at the expense of the rest of us.
The Korean and NAFTA free-trade deals and Chinaâs entry into the WTO led to terrible job losses (and millions of Mexicans pressured to migrate north), our trade deficit accelerated, factories were closed and entire regions of our country were devastated. Just look at Detroit, Flint, and similar cities.
But the promises âŚ In 2011 the Koch brothersâ Cato Institute promised, inÂ Trade Agreement Would Promote U.S. Exports and Colombian Civil Society,
[T]he U.S.-Colombia trade agreement would eliminate barriers to billions of dollars of U.S. exports. Colombia is home to 45 million consumers and is one of the largest economies in Latin America, and a major market for U.S. exports in the Western Hemisphere. âŚ
Anytime trade barriers can be lowered anywhere, at home or abroad, Americans benefit from greater competition and specialization. âŚ
The Colombia trade agreement would extend investor protections and guarantees of equal treatment to service providers in a broad range of sectors. âŚ
Gains in market access would be especially strong for the U.S. financial sector. âŚ
Cato offered promises for Colombia as well,
The FTA with the United States would boost the Colombian economy and complement other important market reforms carried out in that country in the last decade. âŚ
After a decade of substantial improvements in the areas of security and the economy, Colombia stands to benefit from a free-trade agreement with its most important partner. By approving this FTA, the United States would contribute significantly to Colombiaâs economic development at a crucial point in the countryâs history.
And so on. This is typical of the promises we hear every time a new free-trade deal is brought before the Congress for approval.
Last year theÂ Heritage FoundationÂ looked at our trade relationship with China (which has cost millions of jobs and drained trillions from the economy). Heritage explained why the loss of jobs and massive trade deficit are good for us, because this means prices are low, and the owners of American (and Duth and Korean) corporations make out like bandits, we go further into debt with them, and then they buy our companies and land,
Every day we buy things made in China, though they may be made there by American or Dutch or Korean corporations. China buys a lot of our governmentâs debt and lately it has been buying small pieces of American companies and land.
Heritage goes on to say that if our government did something about it, that would make us âless freeâ and âwould pick winners and losersâ and that âcomparative advantageâ means China should do this work. Because their âcomparitive advantageâ is that no democracy, no unions, no environmental protections means they can make things for less so giant corporations have higher profits.
This, by the way, is a different way of saying what I wrote above, âThese trade agreements make the really rich really richer. They outsource jobs to places where people canât object to the low pay and working conditions. This undercuts wages here. The end result is a race to the bottom, while the 1% get richer and richer.â
Yes, free-trade agreements can increase exports. Corn to Mexico, for example. Raw materials to China. But if they increase importsÂ even more, it is still a net loss for jobs and the economy. (No, by âimportsâ I do not mean the mass migration north of desperate Mexican agricultural workers wiped out by giant, government-subsidized US agricultural corporations.)
AÂ huge new trade deal is coming up soon. This is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), called by some the âmother of all free-trade dealsâ and by others the âCorporate Deathstar.â It isÂ a job-loss runaway train that is coming straght at us. The corporate lobbyists are asking Congress to give up their Constitutional duty to scrutinize and amend this agreement by passing âFast Trackâ Trade Promotion Authority. Call your Senators and Representative today and tell them you oppose âFast Trackâ â and tell everyone you know to do the same.
This article originally appeared OurFuture.orgÂ on August 26, 2013. Â Â It can also be found on AFL-CIO NOW blog. Â Reprinted with permission.
About the Author: Dave JohnsonÂ is Dave Johnson Â is a Fellow at Campaign for Americaâs Future, writing about American manufacturing, trade and economic/industrial policy.