May, 01 2009, 01:19pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Phone: (202) 223-4975,Email:,coha@coha.org
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Could Be a Lose-Lose Deal
* The Canadian Parliament is on the verge of passing a free trade measure with Colombia * The trade deal faces staunch opposition from human and labor rights bodies
WASHINGTON
Just a few hours prior to meeting his counterparts from all over the Western Hemisphere at the recently concluded Summit of the Americas, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper reaffirmed Canada's newfound commitment to the region, most clearly reflected in the newly signed free-trade deals with Peru and Colombia. On March 26, the Canadian government submitted legislation to the House of Commons that would implement the Canada-Colombia Free Trade, Labor Cooperation and Environment Agreements.
The Arrangements
In 2007, officials from both countries began secret talks to achieve a Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA). Less than a year later, the deal was underway. Essentially, the CCFTA is a carbon copy of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Consequently, in addition to the trade agreement itself, the accord consists of two additional side agreements, one addressing the environment and the other focusing on labor, which are legally separate from the main text and where both have to be ratified individually by the parliament.
Although Canadian products face much higher tariffs in Colombia than Colombian products do in Canada, both countries have agreed to lower tariffs on imported goods and also to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers as much as possible. Canadian products entering Colombia such as wheat, barley, pork and beef presently face considerable tariffs ranging from 15 percent on cereals to as much as 80 percent on beef. Canada, however, imposes no tariffs on about 80 percent of the Colombian products entering the country including coal, bananas, coffee, palm oil and sugar. Other products which are not duty-free such as cut flowers face moderate tariffs, from 8 to 16 percent. In 2008, Canadian exports to Colombia totaled $703.8 million whereas merchandise imported from Colombia amounted to $643.7 million, representing a meager 0.13 percent of Canada's total trade.
Far From Unanimous Support
Concerns surrounding human rights are at the center of the controversy surrounding the pending Canada-Colombia agreement. Proponents of the deal, including the Harper government, argue that Colombia is not what it used to be during the 1980s. To a certain degree, it is true that under the presidency of Alvaro Uribe, the Colombian human rights situation has improved in certain respects. In 2001, the year before Uribe was elected, 168 union members were murdered in the country. As of 2008, the number declined to 49 victims. Some of this discrepancy is due to a reclassification of who is a labor leader in Colombia, which is something of legerdemain by Uribe officials rather than the real thing. To promote the FTA with Colombia, Canadian officials repeated a vague and mainly theoretical discourse, maintaining that the CCFTA could improve human rights in Colombia by creating more jobs, consequently diminishing poverty and inequality. In theory, a stronger democracy would be established because the CCFTA would give Canada significant leverage on Colombia, if it was ever prepared to exercise it. This would allow Canada to press for improvements and to encourage the Uribe government to respect its international commitment to protecting human rights.
In spite of these potentially positive outcomes of the FTA, many Colombian and international human rights organizations affirm that human rights violations in Colombia remain a significant problem. In a communique dispatched to the Canadian parliament, the Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC) claimed to be "very disappointed to see the government moving ahead with an agreement with Bogota. It fails to reflect such basic Canadian values as respect for human rights, economic justice and protection of the environment."
Colombia holds the record for the second highest rate of internally displaced people in the world, only after Sudan. The situation in the country is considered to be one of the worst human rights crises in the hemisphere by independent international bodies such as the United Nations and the Organization of American States. Labor rights activists and union workers particularly bear the brunt of these abuses. On average, throughout the past 21 years, there has been one Colombian trade union worker assassinated every three days. Adding to these statistics, and perhaps most indicative of the severity of the situation in Colombia, the Uribe government is suspected of acting in collusion with right-wing paramilitaries. "We have no doubts, given the evidence received, that the Colombian government of Alvaro Uribe and the security forces are accomplices in human rights abuses," reported a communique written by a delegation of British Labour Party members of parliament as well as trade union leaders from the U.S., Canada and Britain.
In an open letter to the Canadian International Trade Minister, Stockwell Day, Amnesty International reiterated these persistent concerns over the violation of human rights in Colombia. "It is clear that serious human rights abuses -including death threats and assassinations- are continuing to take place in areas of economic interests." According to Amnesty International, many union-affiliated victims have been targeted then attacked. They have been subject to coercion in efforts to purge the areas of the local population in order to gain access to land that may possess strategic resources such as oil, mineral and agro-industrial sites. Trade union members in particular have fallen victim to intimidation and brutal attacks in order to discourage them from organizing to protect themselves and their labor rights.
An Ineffective Labor Side Agreement
Theoretically, labor side agreements are directed towards improving labor rights and enforcing labor standards among the signatory members of a free trade agreement. While the CCFTA was secretly being negotiated, many hoped for a labor agreement that would have a credible dispute settlement mechanism, similar to the one of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which would allow such trade sanctions as countervailing measures or abrogation of preferential trade status. These measures could then be implemented in order to coerce the signatory countries to respect their pledges regarding their compliance with labor rights standards.
However, the labor side agreement that was eventually signed only provided for the two signatory countries to enforce their own labor regulations, in accordance with provisions of the International Labor Organization (ILO). The agreement unfortunately focuses on the enforcement of existing statutes rather than speculating over raising labor standards in the future. Moreover, if one of the countries fails to respect the current standards, the only sanctions applicable are fines, never to exceed $15 million per year. Critics say that the labor side agreement is highly apathetic towards the malevolent conditions being faced on a daily basis by trade union workers who routinely face the possibility of being assassinated by right-wing interest groups motivated by greed. They argue that these side agreement measures in fact do nothing to protect the victims. "The FTA's human rights penalty works on an economy of scale: the more the Colombian government and its paramilitary allies violate the rights of unionists, the cheaper it is for them," says Canadian author Todd Gordon, in his article "Disaster in the Making: Canada Concludes Its Free Trade Agreement With Colombia." Violations against labor rights in Colombia are endemic, and the Uribe administration, because of the minimal progress it has made to protect Colombian trade unionists, seems unable, or at least unwilling, to effectively tackle the situation. Issuing fines against the delinquent government is clearly an insufficient remedy for an issue that is too important to be considered in terms of dollars and cents. The fact is that fines fail to address the root causes of human rights violations and do not offer a compelling incentive for Bogota to seriously address the problem.
Secret Negotiations
Many condemn Ottawa for the secrecy that surrounded the negotiations of the FTA. There were no public hearings held during the negotiations. Moreover, the agreement was only made public after it was signed by the two parties. The Canadian House of Commons' Standing Committee on International Trade was asked to produce a report on the deal. In that document, "Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia," the Committee came forth with eight major recommendations, in which critical components of the document called for Canada to "maintain close ties with Colombia without signing a free trade agreement until there is confirmation that the improvements noted are maintained, including continued improvement as regards displacement, labor law and accountability for crime, and until the Colombian government shows a more constructive attitude to human rights groups in the country." Nevertheless, none of the Committee's recommendations were considered. Instead, the agreement had been rushed and signed just days prior to the release of the report, which outlined key points for the resolution of an FTA between both countries. Canada gambled on a losing strategy: that free trade will inherently bring democracy to what some would consider a lawless society. Ottawa should only have looked to its neighbor in Washington to see the futility of this approach.
Who Benefits From the CCFTA?
Colombia is not a major trade partner of Canada, representing only a tiny percentage (0.13 percent) of overall Canadian trade. Given this fact, an FTA between Colombia and Canada almost seems unnecessary. However, it is worth remembering the potential created by the CCFTA for Canadian businesses when it comes to foreign direct investment (FDI) in Colombia. In recent years, Canadian direct investment in Colombia has more than doubled, reaching a figure of $739 million. Also, this trend is expected to grow because of the vast investment opportunities offered by Colombia, especially in the oil and gas exploration sector as well as in mining. In November 2008, after initialing the FTA with Canada, President Alvaro Uribe expressed his desire for the accord to help spur oil, gas and mining exploration across half of Colombia's territory. The CCFTA will provide Canadian entrepreneurs in Colombia with substantial new investment rights and increased security for Canadian companies thinking about investing in the country. Unfortunately, human rights traditionally do not receive such protections.
There already are more than 20 Canadian companies operating in the oil and gas sector in Colombia. Yet, it is in these very industries that most of the abuses of labor rights are perpetrated, including 40 percent of the murders of union leaders and workers. What is even more disconcerting is that Canadian oil and mining companies are investing in some of the most conflict-ridden zones of the country. According to several human rights associations, there is a clear correlation between extracting natural resources and the presence of human rights abuses. In fact, the regions that are richest in minerals and oil are also often the most plagued by violence. According to a report of the Canadian House of Commons' Standing Committee on International Trade, these regions are "the source of 87 percent of forced displacements, 82 percent of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and 83 percent of assassinations of trade union leaders in the country." To some degree, investing in such areas ineluctably would make Canada complicit in Colombia's endemic human rights problems.
Trying to Attract Investors
Some observers also contend that Colombia does not in fact benefit under the terms of the proposed FTA. Since the tariffs and trade barriers are already very low in Canada on Colombian products, the latter country will reap relatively small benefits from the trade agreement. However, for Colombia, the advantages lie mainly in the gains in FDI, in the hope that this will create much needed employment. But it is difficult to convince investors to place new capital investment in Colombia because of the high level of political risk confronting such projects. In Colombia's perspective, the FTA with Canada could help change this perception and send a signal to investors from other countries, providing assurance that investing in Colombia is not hazardous and even could provide worthy business opportunities. However, in the current economic context, it is highly doubtful that such a plan would function appropriately. With investors seeing their net worth melting away, businesses are more likely to look for FDI opportunities in more politically stable and economically viable countries. Additionally, signing a deal with Canada would be a way for Colombia to put pressure on the U.S., which has not yet ratified the FTA with Colombia. The deal now has been put on ice by U.S. Congress, over concerns about the human rights situation in the country. But once the deal with Canada is implemented, Bogota hopes that the United States will want to go ahead with its own bilateral trade agreement, in spite of the reluctance expressed in Washington, so not to be left behind and lose business opportunities in Colombia, in Canada's favor.
Canadian Multilateralism Left Behind
Many critics point to the fact that Canada, which has always been a proud defender of multilateralism and the WTO, should not be engaging in increased bilateral trade agreements with Latin American countries. Multilateralism diminishes asymmetry between trade partners and levels the playing field, something that has always been a priority for Canada. Since NAFTA was implemented in 1994, only three bilateral FTAs have been enacted by Canada; with Costa Rica, Chile and Israel. However, since Stephen Harper's Conservative Party was elected in 2006, Canada signed an FTA with Peru and Colombia and is negotiating no less than eight other bilateral trade pacts. If Canada is truly interested in Latin America, it might want to adhere to its "Americas Strategy," which promotes building "strong, sustainable economies through increased trade and investment linkages, as well as mutual commitment to expanding opportunity to all citizens." In order to achieve these goals, Canada should work multilaterally with other countries of the hemisphere. Multiplying bilateral trade agreements is just one way to promote Canada's advantage, without effectively taking into account the benefits in store for Latin America, while at the same time undermining efforts to achieve efficient multilateral trade organizations embracing the entire hemisphere. In a region with some of the highest indicators of inequality, bilateral deals favor different treatment with various countries, a pathway contrary to the WTO's goals. Some inevitably lose in this process and, more often than not, the poorer country in the bilateral agreement is disadvantaged.
Almost all parties would agree that Canada should actively engage with Colombia to help the country continue to improve its record on human rights and to help build the institutional capacity which, in turn, can be counted on to contribute to hemispheric peace and stability. But Canada has to make certain that a trade agreement is not warranted by the current situation in Colombia. Some standards must be set before the CCFTA is implemented because the existing code is a far cry from being up to the job.
This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Mylene Bruneau
May 1st, 2009
Founded in 1975, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a nonprofit, tax-exempt independent research and information organization, was established to promote the common interests of the hemisphere, raise the visibility of regional affairs and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, as well as encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America.
LATEST NEWS
Unions Cheer After Judge Halts Trump Order on Federal Workers' Collective Bargaining Rights
"Today's court order is a victory for federal employees, their union rights, and the American people they serve," said the head of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Apr 25, 2025
Labor unions representing federal workers celebrated on Friday after a U.S. district judge blocked President Donald Trump's March executive order intended to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of government employees.
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) swiftly took action over what union national president Doreen Greenwald called "an attempt to silence the voices of our nation's public servants," filing a lawsuit in in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.
Judge Paul Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, granted a preliminary injunction on Friday, blocking implementation of the executive order (EO), which aimed to restrict workers' rights under the guise of protecting national security.
CNNreported that during a Wednesday hearing, Friedman questioned "Trump's motive in issuing the order" and "the administration's contention that certain agencies have national security as their primary function, citing the National Institutes of Health, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Department of Agriculture."
Also reporting on the hearing earlier this week, Politicodetailed:
Attorneys representing the NTEU mentioned that the Trump administration, after issuing the EO, immediately sued an NTEU-affiliate union in Kentucky and Texas—federal districts dominated by Republican appointees.
Shortly after Friedman's hearing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves, who is hearing the government's case in Kentucky, denied a request from a local NTEU chapter to postpone oral arguments that are scheduled for Friday. Reeves is an appointee of President George W. Bush. A decision in those cases could affect the NTEU's lawsuit before Friedman.
Still, the NTEU welcomed Freidman's Friday decision to halt what it called an "anti-union, anti-federal employee executive order" while also preparing for the Trump administration to "quickly appeal."
"Today's court order is a victory for federal employees, their union rights, and the American people they serve," said Greenwald. "The preliminary injunction granted at NTEU's request means the collective bargaining rights of federal employees will remain intact and the administration's illegal agenda to sideline the voices of federal employees and dismantle unions is blocked."
"NTEU will continue to use every tool available to protect federal employees and the valuable services they provide from these hostile attacks on their jobs, their agencies, and their legally protected rights to organize," she pledged.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest federal workers union, also applauded Friday's news.
"AFGE congratulates our union siblings at NTEU on their important victory in the D.C. District Court today," said national president Everett Kelley. "This ruling is a major step toward restoring the collective bargaining rights that federal employees are guaranteed under the law."
Kelley added that "AFGE looks forward to arguing our own case against this unlawful executive order in federal court. We are confident that, together, these efforts will secure the full relief federal employees deserve—and send a clear message that no administration is above the law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Says Trump Arrest of Wisconsin Judge Is About One Thing Only: 'Unchecked Power'
"Let's be clear. Trump's arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with his moving this country toward authoritarianism."
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders led congressional progressives on Friday in condemning the Trump administration's arrest of a county judge in Wisconsin for allegedly helping an undocumented man evade capture by federal immigration agents.
FBI agents arrested 65-year-old Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who faces felony charges of obstruction and concealing an individual, whom she is accused of giving refuge in her chambers as federal officers sought to arrest him.
In a statement accusing President Donald Trump of "illegally usurping congressional powers," Sanders (I-Vt.) said: "Let's be clear. Trump's arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with his moving this country toward authoritarianism."
"Trump continues to demonstrate that he does not believe in the Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law."
"He is suing media that he dislikes. He is attacking universities whose policies he disagrees with. He is intimidating major law firms who have opposed him," Sanders continued. "He is ignoring a 9-0 Supreme Court decision to bring Kilmar Abrego García back from El Salvador, where he was illegally sent. He is threatening to impeach judges who rule against him."
"Trump's latest attack on the judiciary and Judge Dugan is about one thing—unchecked power," the senator asserted. "He will attack and undermine any institution that stands in his way. Trump continues to demonstrate that he does not believe in the Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law. He simply wants more and more power for himself."
"It is time for my colleagues in the Republican Party who believe in the Constitution to stand up to his growing authoritarianism," Sanders added.
Other progressive lawmakers also condemned Dugan's arrest, with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) calling this "a red alert moment" that we "all must rise against."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on the social media site X: "Judge Dugan's arrest is outrageous and a fear tactic to our independent judiciary. Trump has always thought he was above the law, but now he's enabling his goons to push that limit as far as it can go. His reckless deportations and flaunting of the Constitution will fail."
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.)
said on social media that "arresting judges is the kind of crackdown you see in a police state."
"This is how dictators take power," Lee warned. "They manufacture crises, undermine our institutions, and erode our checks and balances. If they'll come for one, they'll come for all."
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said that "Trump's playbook is simple: punish anyone who stands in his way."
"This ain't law and order—it's a rise of authoritarianism in real time," she added.
The FBI arrested a Wisconsin judge who stood up for due process for immigrants. This is unprecedented. All of us need to stand up and speak out against arresting judges in this country. We are living in dangerous times.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ro Khanna ( @khanna.house.gov) April 25, 2025 at 11:07 AM
Accusing the Trump administration of a "shocking" willingness to "weaponize federal law enforcement," Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) contended that the FBI "coming into a community and arresting a judge is a serious matter" that would require a "high legal bar."
Moore added, "I am very alarmed at this increasingly lawless action of the Trump administration," including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has "been defying courts and acting with disregard for the Constitution."
Advocacy groups including Voces de la Frontera, Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression (MAARPR), and Milwaukee Turners led a Friday afternoon protest against Dugan's arrest outside the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
HAPPENING NOW: A HUGE crowd of protesters have gathered outside a Milwaukee courthouse to support Judge Hannah Dugan after her arrest earlier today
[image or embed]
— Marco Foster ( @marcofoster.bsky.social) April 25, 2025 at 1:46 PM
"To refer to this heinous attack as alarming would be an understatement," MAARPR said in a statement accusing FBI Director Kash Patel of "intentionally being public with his announcement and accusations" and "seeking to bypass Dugan's due process and label her as a criminal before she even has an opportunity to speak up."
"It's no coincidence that Patel and the FBI have acted this way when the agency has a long history of bypassing any due process," the group said. "They are seeking to send a clear message: Either you play along with Trump's agenda, or pay the consequences."
MAARPR continued:
During this period of racist and political repression, we must stand together to denounce today's actions by the FBI. What happened to Dugan is not new. The FBI and other agencies have been emboldened in recent months, snatching people off the streets, separating families, terrorizing communities, breaking doors down of pro-Palestine activists, and contributing to the unjust deportation of immigrants who don't have criminal records. What is new is that they have gone after a judge.
"The conditions we face are scary, but it will be the people united who can put an end to this terror by the FBI, ICE, and all other agencies committing such acts of injustice," the group added. "The people united will stand against Trump and his agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Wants $27 Billion for Trump's Golden Dome 'Fantasy' While Working to Gut Working-Class Safety Net
"$27 billion for a golden defense dome, yet Republicans want to cut Medicaid," wrote one observer. "Vote accordingly in 2026."
Apr 25, 2025
As Republicans in Congress push forward with a sweeping tax and spending plan that could be be paid for in part by deep cuts to Medicaid and to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the GOP plans to add a defense package to that bill which will include "an initial $27 billion boost" for the Golden Dome desired by U.S. President Donald, according to Thursday reporting from Reuters.
Trump has said he wants an "Iron Dome for America"—something akin to Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense. In a speech earlier this year he referred to it as a "Golden Dome."
Experts who spoke to NPR recently said that building a Golden Dome would be more complicated than Israel's Iron Dome for multiple reasons. Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, earlier this week called the Golden Dome idea a "complete fantasy."
According to Reuters, which cited "a document" and a congressional aide, the $27 billion would be a part of a $150 billion defense package Republicans plan to introduce. "It will be part of Trump's sweeping tax cuts bill, which will cut taxes by about $5 trillion and add approximately $5.7 trillion to the federal government's debt over the next decade," per the outlet. The measure, if passed, will also fund the construction of 14 warships and increase homeland security spending.
"The $27 billion investment in Golden Dome will fund the building of more missile interceptors and the purchase of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) antiballistic missile batteries, according to the congressional aide. THAAD is made by Lockheed Martin," the defense contractor, Reuters reported.
According to reporting from the outlet last week, billionaire "Elon Musk's SpaceX and two partners have emerged as front-runners to win a crucial part of the Golden Dome program that would track incoming missiles."
Bob Peterson, a senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, applauded the move. Peterson shared Reuters' reporting and wrote on Friday: "This is an important start to building Golden Dome. I sincerely hope this passes so that missile defense will protect all Americans from our adversaries."
Not everyone is enthusiastic about the spending.
One observer wrote on social media: "Golden Dome missile defense shield? WTF. $27 billion for a golden defense dome, yet Republicans want to cut Medicaid and Social Security. Vote accordingly in 2026."
"More than 180 companies are interested, but Musk's Space X just so happens to be the 'front-runner' for the contracts," wrote Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), reacting to earlier reporting from Reuters about Musk's potential involvement in the project. "Shut this corrupt deal down. No cuts to Medicaid and Social Security to pay for more Musk contracts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular