Them 2 – U.S. 1

On the evidence of the past week, struggling U.S. allies can make progress in direct relationship to the distance they put between themselves and the State Department. Exhibit A is Lebanon's power-sharing deal with Hezbollah. Exhibit B is Israel's negotiations with Syria. And the final exhibit, the one at the furthest remove from State's tender mercies, is Iraq, where General David Petraeus just announced that the past week saw the lowest number of security incidents in more than four years.

Commenting Wednesday on the news of the talks between the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and unnamed Syrian counterparts, State Department Assistant Secretary C. David Welch saw reason for hope: "We think the expansion of the circle of peace would be a good thing. And, of course, it would be very, very helpful if that included an agreement with Syria."

Just as Israel was attempting to draw Syria into this "circle of peace," Syrian client Hezbollah was sinking its claws deeper into the government of Lebanon. Earlier this month, Hezbollah set off the worst round of killing in Lebanon since the end of the civil war in 1990. Now Lebanon's weak government has given the Hezbollah-controlled opposition enough cabinet seats to veto any policy it opposes.

Of this bad deal, State's Mr. Welch said it is "not a perfect solution, but it is much better than the alternatives." The alternatives are the military operations Hezbollah undertakes against Lebanon's government or Israel. The primary enabler of Hezbollah is Syria, long a conduit for the group's arms and financing. It is difficult to read these events as anything other than symptoms of weakness in two U.S. allies, Israel and Lebanon, and gains for Hezbollah, Syria and of course their main patron, Iran.

The negotiations between Israel and Syria ostensibly involve Israel withdrawing from the Golan Heights. Israelis can calculate their own national interests, but even in Israel this initiative is being widely interpreted as an effort by the scandal-plagued Prime Minister Olmert to deflect attention from his legal problems. Whatever the purpose, the talks inevitably raise the public standing of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad at a time when he is extending his influence over our Lebanese allies.

Meanwhile, the "failure" in Iraq makes steady, substantive progress. In remarks yesterday to the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Petraeus noted that much of the reduction in violence in Iraq is due to "recent operations" in Basra, Mosul and Sadr City. Those operations have succeeded in no small part from the increasingly positive performance of the Iraqi army. In Baghdad's Sadr City this week, the Iraqi troops deployed through its neighborhoods without direct support from U.S. forces. Residents living in the grip of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militias openly welcomed the Iraqi troops, as long-closed businesses reopened.

Earlier this month, a joint U.S.-Iraqi operation moved into Mosul. This isn't just another village but a city of some two million residents. Located in northern Iraq (close to Syria), it has long been a stronghold of al Qaeda in Iraq. Virtually the entire city has been brought under control by the coalition forces, and violent incidents are down dramatically the past month.

The significance of these countervailing trends should be apparent. In Iraq since the onset of the surge, U.S. policy has been clear and consistent. By contrast, U.S. policy toward Syria has been impossible to discern. Obviously the two examples are not alike. Iraq is a U.S. military operation, while the rest of the region falls under the portfolio of State's diplomats. But absent the will to make Syria pay a price for its destructive mischief, a U.S. policy vacuum exists. It's no surprise the Syrians are taking advantage of it.

Everything now becomes grist for the U.S. presidential election, and these events offer opportunities for both campaigns. The fecklessness of U.S. policy toward Syria and Lebanon offers John McCain a chance to distinguish his policies from the Bush presidency. The same holds for Barack Obama, though it will be interesting to see if Mr. McCain lets him make it to November denying the reality of the potentially huge achievement in Iraq and its implication for the region.

All these places – Iraq, Iran, Syria and Israel – have been routine fodder for campaign rhetoric over the past year. The winners and losers this week make clear that outcomes serving American interests depend crucially on the quality of leadership, not least from the U.S. President.

We must stand with Columbia

CSP Security Forum by Nancy Menges Free trade with Columbia will cement Democracy in the Americas The free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia is in many ways more about the future direction of Latin America than about trade policy. Colombia has lobbied hard for passage of this agreement because it would make permanent the trade preferences they now have, and to attract long term foreign investment. What the Colombian Government cannot say in their lobbying efforts to US Congress members is that they need our support and financial backing in order to counter the many challenges presented by the narco-guerilla insurgency known as FARC (The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and its patron in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez; both actively try to undermine Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. For Chavez, Colombia is the big prize and he will do everything possible to bring it into his sphere of influence. Already Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua are firmly in the Chavez camp with Argentina showing signs of a close affinity with the Chavistas. Instead of recognizing the outstanding leadership President Uribe has provided, the message he and the Colombian people are getting is that we are punishing them by not passing the FTA. This weakens Colombia in the eyes of other Latin American leaders and proves Chavez right that America cannot be counted on as an ally. In a show of support, the Presidents of Chile, Mexico, Canada and Peru wrote to House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress appealing for passage of the Colombia FTA, in the name of regional stability, but so far their request has been met with a deaf ear. On December 20, 2007, the CEO’s of nineteen major American companies wrote a letter to the House and Senate leadership urging passage of the FTA with Colombia. In their letter they pointed out that this agreement would eliminate barriers to US farm products and manufactured goods while providing new sales opportunities for small, medium and large companies and their employees as well as American farmers and ranchers. (See Letter in Main News below). In considering any legislation having to do with Latin America, one would be remiss to underestimate the danger that Hugo Chavez poses to regional stability as well as to the national security of the United States. Since becoming president of Venezuela in 1998, Chavez has used his country’s oil wealth to influence elections in neighboring states, has used indigenous and grassroots organizations to disrupt democratic, US friendly governments and has financially supported the FARC guerillas in Colombia. In addition, Chavez has opened Latin America to Iranian influence by establishing bilateral trade, by initiating weekly flights from Iran to Caracas via Syria and by encouraging an Iranian presence in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Iran has a large embassy in Nicaragua and plans on building a deep water port on Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast to be connected by dry canal to the Atlantic coast. These are ominous developments since different terrorist groups already operate in such places as the tri-border region between Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina and use Venezuela’s Margarita Island as a training area. This is a struggle between Chavez and Uribe for the possible future for Latin America. On the one hand, Chavez is trying to turn Venezuela into a proletarian dictatorship—using Cuba as his model—while Uribe has done everything to strengthen the institutions of democratic governance. Chavez’s economic policies have led to the highest inflation (over 20%) of any country in South America as well as the highest food prices and food shortages; Uribe has brought consistent growth of about 7% annually and relatively low inflation, with food prices remaining fairly stable. While Venezuelans are losing their freedoms and becoming ever more impoverished, Colombians are enjoying greater prosperity and a renewed sense of stability and hope for their country’s future. That is why President Uribe has an 85% approval rating and Chavez a 37% rating. While Chavez is extremely hostile to the United States and to our values, Uribe has been a real partner in trying to work with the US to reduce the flow of drugs from Colombia. With US assistance through Plan Colombia, Uribe has been able to contain and reduce the number of FARC narco-terrorists from about 14,000 – 16,000 members several years ago to about 7,000 – 9,000 today. While Uribe has been successful in fighting against the guerilla insurgency, Chavez—as documented in the captured documents of the FARC—gives the FARC sanctuary inside his country and provides them with weapons. Unions in Columbia The Free Trade Agreement with Colombia may be considered by policy makers as solely a trade issue or in a broader strategic framework, taking into consideration some of the factors mentioned above. Since some members of Congress are not well informed and tend to cling to arguments that are factually untrue, I hope this will clarify the issues raised by many about labor unions in Columbia. It is important to point out that we cannot compare the labor unions in the United States with the ones in Colombia. A great portion of unionists in the Andean Nation operate outside the law and are violent in nature. Often, terrorists, left-wing agitators, para-militaries and even ‘Chavistas’ infiltrate these organizations for personal gain. What the mainstream media in the US doesn’t say is that the majority of these unions behave like gangs and engage in violent disputes over particular territories or businesses. Just 4.5% of Colombia’s 20 million workers are in unions. This is a decline from a decade ago when membership stood at 6%. The reason there are fewer union members now is due to the radicalized political agenda of the leadership of the large unions. From about 200 assassinations of unionists a year in 2001 and 2002, the number fell by half in 2003 and has continued to fall since then. The AFL-CIO claims 38 unionists were assassinated in 2007, while the Colombian Ministry of Social Protection counts 25. Even if we accept the higher AFL-CIO fig­ure, that would mark a plunge of more than 80% in assassinations of trade unionists during President Uribe’s time in office; the decrease would be nearly 90 per­cent if the Ministry of Social Protection figure is accepted. Either number represents remarkable and welcome progress under President Uribe. The government established a protection program for vulnerable groups of society. Currently 1,504 union members have enrolled in the program, more than any other group of civil society. Working with the International Labor Organization, Colombia has created a spe­cial unit under its Attorney General to investigate priority cases of violence against trade unionists. Left-leaning groups in Colombia have col­luded with labor interests in the United States to convince the Democratic leadership in Congress that this FTA should be defeated on humanitarian grounds. The popular perception is that a trade agreement with Colombia would result in Colombian goods coming into the country, displacing American products and workers. Wrong! Most Colombian products, $9.2 billion in 2007, already pay no tariffs to enter America under the Andean Trade Preferences Act, enacted in 1991 and renewed again this year with Senator Clinton’s support. Yet American products, valued at $8.6 billion in 2007, pay substantial tariffs to enter Colombia. What FTA with Colombia would do is lift these tariffs. American exporters and workers would be the main beneficiaries of the trade agreement, which would put U.S. and Colombian exports on a level playing field. At the insistence of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, the pact was rewritten. In fact, the Colombian government is working together with the United Nations International Labor Organization to enhance its labor laws and their implementation and has taken steps to protect union members and end impunity in cases of violence against them. Colombia has incorporated obligations to enforce the UN’s International Labor Organization’s five “fundamental labor rights”: freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of compulsory labor, the abolition of child labor, and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. In addition, Colombia raised its minimum wage and adopted provisions for overtime pay. The Free Trade Agreement is widely popular among many labor union members in Colombia. The labor leaders opposing the FTA represent workers unaffected by trade and their arguments are clearly based on the fear that the potential success of the FTA will bring popularity to their political opponents in the Colombian government, even with a president who has an 85 percent approval rating, and simply because they dislike the United States. These leftist labor unions oppose every open market economic policy and often are involved in drug trafficking. The real story in Colombia is not the current level of violence but its dramatic fall in a relatively short period since President Uribe came to power in 2002. Free Trade Today’s global economy offers tremendous opportunities for the US. In general, lowering barriers to goods and services is in America’s interest. Though there are always some downsides, free trade and globalization has provided employment opportunities for people in countries with a long history of poverty and despair. Many of these people living in poorer countries have benefited from American investments that provided opportunities for a better life. The United States is Colombia’s largest trading partner representing about 40% of Colombia’s exports and 29% of its imports. Two-way trade between Colombia and the US amounted to almost 16 billion dollars in 2006. The US would have an opportunity to increase the export of US farm products because the 11.3% percent tariffs on imported products that now exist would be eliminated in Colombia. A December, 2006 study by the US International Trade Commission estimated that the agreement would boost US exports to Colombia by $1.1 billion. Economics is just one aspect of the US-Colombian relationship and perhaps not the most important. Highly important issues of national security and foreign policy are being pushed to the margins. Enormous progress made by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe in diminishing human rights violations and the harsh reality Colombia has faced in fighting a forty year long narco-guerilla insurgency has sometimes not been taken into consideration. Uribe has not only been able to rebuild a state that for years was immersed in anarchy but to do so with a low number of casualties; a phenomenon almost unseen in other cases of nation building. Unlike many countries in Latin America that have used the excuse of guerilla activity to abolish democratic institutions, Colombia has been able to maintain a parliamentary and constitutional regime. In relation to the accusation of the killing of union leaders, it has been reported by a number of sources that since Alvaro Uribe took office in 2002 the number of killings of union leaders has sharply declined. Union leaders have been killed mostly by right-wing paramilitaries (even though it is estimated that one third of union activists were killed by left wing guerillas). Uribe’s Colombia has been remarkably effective in minimizing violence. No “dirty war” has taken place in Colombia. The Colombian government has shown significant progress in this area as more than 30,000 individuals belonging to para-military groups were peacefully disarmed in a deal with the Uribe government. The fact that pockets of para-military still exist in Colombia should not downplay this significant achievement by the Colombian government. Colombia is still our best Latin American ally against the highly dangerous rule of Hugo Chavez. President Uribe has become a major target of US archenemy Hugo Chavez because Colombia is a vibrant democracy with a successful economy (growing at about 7%annually) and presents a distinct alternative to Chavez’s ever more dictatorial tendencies and failing economy. It is important that continuity be secured in Colombia. Without America’s support, it will be more difficult for President Uribe to fight against the forces that threaten Colombia’s progress and stability. Therefore, it is crucial that the US show support for this great and brave ally and ratify, without hesitation, the free trade agreement.