Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
About the US/Colombia Free Trade Agreement:
It is very telling that Hillary Clinton has insisted for years that she is opposed to the US/Colombia Free Trade Agreement, yet this deceit is exposed in the email dump in February:
On the eve of South Carolina’s Democratic presidential primary, the U.S. State Department released 1,500 pages of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails from her tenure as secretary of state. Included in the 881 emails published Friday night are messages highlighting Clinton lobbying for a controversial Colombian trade deal she previously pledged to oppose.
During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton said she opposed the deal because “I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia.” She later declared, “I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.”
But newly released emails show that as secretary of state, Clinton was personally lobbying Democratic members of Congress to support the deal, even promising one senior lawmaker that the deal would extend labor protections to Colombian workers that would be as good or better than those enjoyed by many workers in the United States.
One of the 2011 emails from Clinton to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Clinton aide Robert Hormats has a subject line “Sandy Levin” — a reference to the Democratic congressman who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees U.S. trade policy. In the email detailing her call with Levin, she said the Michigan lawmaker “appreciates the changes that have been made, the national security arguments and Santos's reforms” -- the latter presumably a reference to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. [font color=red]She concludes the message about the call with Levin by saying, “I told him that at the rate we were going, Columbian (sic) workers were going to end up w the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even, Michigan.”[/font]
Froman — a former Citigroup executive who as trade representative was lobbying for passage of the deal — responded by thanking Clinton for her "help and support.” Hormats, a former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs who subsequently was hired by Clinton at the State Department, later chimed in, telling her “terrific job” and “GREAT line on Columbian (sic) workers!!!!!”
During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton said she opposed the deal because “I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia.” She later declared, “I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.”
But newly released emails show that as secretary of state, Clinton was personally lobbying Democratic members of Congress to support the deal, even promising one senior lawmaker that the deal would extend labor protections to Colombian workers that would be as good or better than those enjoyed by many workers in the United States.
One of the 2011 emails from Clinton to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Clinton aide Robert Hormats has a subject line “Sandy Levin” — a reference to the Democratic congressman who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees U.S. trade policy. In the email detailing her call with Levin, she said the Michigan lawmaker “appreciates the changes that have been made, the national security arguments and Santos's reforms” -- the latter presumably a reference to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. [font color=red]She concludes the message about the call with Levin by saying, “I told him that at the rate we were going, Columbian (sic) workers were going to end up w the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even, Michigan.”[/font]
Froman — a former Citigroup executive who as trade representative was lobbying for passage of the deal — responded by thanking Clinton for her "help and support.” Hormats, a former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs who subsequently was hired by Clinton at the State Department, later chimed in, telling her “terrific job” and “GREAT line on Columbian (sic) workers!!!!!”
via IBT, Getty Images
Yeah, great line... just sickeningly bizarre.
Would those "rights" for workers in Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan also include being crushed by corruption, Mrs. Clinton? That is a fair question, and others are also asking it:
Democracy Now!'s Juan González: Hillary Clinton's policy was a Latin American crime story, April 12, 2016
Hillary Clinton displayed a sweeping grasp of federal policy at the Daily News Editorial Board on Saturday.
Touting her plan to rebuild America’s infrastructure, Clinton said:
“Look, I’m excited about this stuff. I’m kind of a wonky person.”
But I kept thinking of the big gap between Clinton’s words and actions that her own emails reveal — especially toward Latin America.
When my turn came for a question, I asked about her role as secretary of state during the 2009 military coup in Honduras — a country from which so many children and mothers have fled to the U.S. of late to escape massive political and gang violence.
Touting her plan to rebuild America’s infrastructure, Clinton said:
“Look, I’m excited about this stuff. I’m kind of a wonky person.”
But I kept thinking of the big gap between Clinton’s words and actions that her own emails reveal — especially toward Latin America.
When my turn came for a question, I asked about her role as secretary of state during the 2009 military coup in Honduras — a country from which so many children and mothers have fled to the U.S. of late to escape massive political and gang violence.
.....
But it’s not just Honduras. There’s also Colombia.
During the 2008 presidential race, both Clinton and Barack Obama vowed to block the Colombia Free Trade agreement President George W. Bush had negotiated.
They specifically condemned Colombia’s notorious history of repressing trade unionists.
But Clinton emails released this year show that in 2011, she quietly lobbied members of Congress to approve the Colombia pact.
In one email, she boasted of telling a key lawmaker from Michigan that “at the rate we were going, Colombian workers were going to end up (with) the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even Michigan.”
Last year, the AFL-CIO reported 2,000 incidents of violence and threats against Colombian trade union leaders — including 105 killings — during the trade agreement’s first four years.
Not exactly Michigan’s labor climate.
Hand it to Hillary, though. She sure is wonky.
During the 2008 presidential race, both Clinton and Barack Obama vowed to block the Colombia Free Trade agreement President George W. Bush had negotiated.
They specifically condemned Colombia’s notorious history of repressing trade unionists.
But Clinton emails released this year show that in 2011, she quietly lobbied members of Congress to approve the Colombia pact.
In one email, she boasted of telling a key lawmaker from Michigan that “at the rate we were going, Colombian workers were going to end up (with) the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even Michigan.”
Last year, the AFL-CIO reported 2,000 incidents of violence and threats against Colombian trade union leaders — including 105 killings — during the trade agreement’s first four years.
Not exactly Michigan’s labor climate.
Hand it to Hillary, though. She sure is wonky.
"She's Baldly Lying": Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton's Defense of Her Role in Honduras Coup, April 13, 2016
Hear Hillary Clinton Defend Her Role in Honduras Coup When Questioned by Juan González, April 13, 2016
The Clinton Email Bernie Sanders Should Bring Up in Sunday’s Debate, March 4, 2016
Sanders should ask Clinton about her relentless advocacy of free-trade treaties, and in particular about one 2011 email (to which David Sirota and Sarah Berger called attention in a piece last week) where she wrote, in pushing for the now ratified free-trade agreement with Colombia: “at the rate we were going, Columbian [sic] workers were going to end up w the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even, Michigan.”
The effect of Bill Clinton’s NAFTA and Hillary Clinton’s Colombian Free Trade Agreement has been devastating to Michigan and most of the rest of the country, and accounts for the appeal of Donald Trump.
As to the “better rights” Colombian workers have, vis-á-vis Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana, here’s what that looks like:
Considering that Clinton said in that email that Colombian “workers were going to end up w the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even, Michigan,” here’s the question Sanders should ask her: Did she mean that she hoped to raise Colombia up to US standards, or lower the United States’ to Colombia’s?
The effect of Bill Clinton’s NAFTA and Hillary Clinton’s Colombian Free Trade Agreement has been devastating to Michigan and most of the rest of the country, and accounts for the appeal of Donald Trump.
As to the “better rights” Colombian workers have, vis-á-vis Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana, here’s what that looks like:
According to Colombia’s respected Escuela Nacional Sindical, as of April 2015, 105 union activists had been executed in the four years since Clinton’s free-trade treaty went into effect. That’s just trade unionists. More broadly, Colombia continues to be one of the most dangerous places in the world for activists of all stripes.
Threats of death and physical violence against workers—teachers, peasants, mine and oil laborers, and so on—are uncountable. They are an everyday fact of life for any Colombian who hopes to have some say over terms of labor.
Beyond physical repression and threats of physical repression, the “rights” of labor in Colombia are practically nonexistent for vast numbers of workers. Routine are “illegal forms of hiring, the use of collective pacts by companies to thwart union organizing, and the problem of impunity for anti-union activity.”
Also see this report by David Sirota: “as union leaders and human rights activists conveyed…harrowing reports of violence to then-Secretary of State Clinton in late 2011, urging her to pressure the Colombian government to protect labor organizers, she responded first with silence” and then public praise for “Colombia’s progress on human rights, thereby permitting hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid to flow to the same Colombian military that labor activists say helped intimidate workers.”
Considering that Clinton said in that email that Colombian “workers were going to end up w the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even, Michigan,” here’s the question Sanders should ask her: Did she mean that she hoped to raise Colombia up to US standards, or lower the United States’ to Colombia’s?
As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations, April 8, 2015
For the United States, these were precisely the sorts of discomfiting accounts that were supposed to be prevented in Colombia under a labor agreement that accompanied a recently signed free trade pact liberalizing the exchange of goods between the countries. From Washington to Bogota, leaders had promoted the pact as a win for all -- a deal that would at once boost trade while strengthening the rights of embattled Colombian labor organizers. That formulation had previously drawn skepticism from many prominent Democrats, among them Hillary Clinton.
Yet as union leaders and human rights activists conveyed these harrowing reports of violence to then-Secretary of State Clinton in late 2011, urging her to pressure the Colombian government to protect labor organizers, she responded first with silence, these organizers say. The State Department publicly praised Colombia’s progress on human rights, thereby permitting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to flow to the same Colombian military that labor activists say helped intimidate workers.
At the same time that Clinton's State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.
[font color= red]The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.[/font]
The Clinton Foundation, Giustra and the State Department did not respond to International Business Times' requests for comment. Pacific Rubiales has denied that it has engaged in any violence toward union organizers.
Yet as union leaders and human rights activists conveyed these harrowing reports of violence to then-Secretary of State Clinton in late 2011, urging her to pressure the Colombian government to protect labor organizers, she responded first with silence, these organizers say. The State Department publicly praised Colombia’s progress on human rights, thereby permitting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to flow to the same Colombian military that labor activists say helped intimidate workers.
At the same time that Clinton's State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.
[font color= red]The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.[/font]
The Clinton Foundation, Giustra and the State Department did not respond to International Business Times' requests for comment. Pacific Rubiales has denied that it has engaged in any violence toward union organizers.
Though Clinton has never explicitly explained her change of position on the U.S.-Colombia trade pact, she acknowledged “concerns” about Colombian “human rights abuses, violence against labor organizers, targeted assassinations, and the atrocities of right-wing paramilitary groups” in her 2014 book, “Hard Choices.” But, she asserted, “By the time I visited Bogota in June 2010, violence was down dramatically.” She said that she met up with her husband while he “was traveling through Colombia on Clinton Foundation business” and the couple “went out for dinner with friends and staff at a local steakhouse, and toasted Colombia's progress.”
Another example of how coincidentally convenient that Bill Clinton's travels criss-crossing the globe on "business" for the Clinton Foundation shadow his wife's travels as Secretary of State, as she vigorously pushed for trade deals that so very nicely benefited The Clinton Foundation. It seems not to matter to the Clintons about horrid human rights violations when the flow of wealth to the Clinton Foundation is involved.
Bill seems to be the bagman for the deals his wife made as Secretary of State. I would wager that overlaying his travel itinerary with hers would put them on a similar route, with his timing just a tad behind hers. Hopefully the FBI is looking at this. All of this makes me sick.
Human Rights Watch reported that in the same year Clinton visited Bogota, “threats against unionists -- mostly attributed to paramilitaries' successor groups -- have increased since 2007” and that “impunity in such cases is widespread.” The Colombian human rights group PASO International reported that in 2011, Pacific Rubiales “workers were forced off picket lines at gunpoint by members of the Armed Forces during [a] strike and only allowed to return to work when they had renounced the union.” In 2012, a Colombian journalist covering protests against Pacific Rubiales died after being detained by the police. A year later, a report from two Democratic members of the Congressional Monitoring Group on Labor Rights in Colombia found “murders and threats against union members and harmful subcontracting persist in Colombia largely unabated.”
For the Clintons, it appears that human rights are not their priority.
We sincerely hope the current FBI investigations will unearth these truths.
Book alleges donor cash influenced Hillary's stance on Colombia trade deal, April 22, 2015
The book zeroes in on the Clintons’ relationship with Frank Giustra (pictured) as it related to his Colombian business interests dating back to 2005. (via Politico)
Hillary Clinton with Frank Giustra (far left), Louise Arbour and U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering (right). (via IB Times)
Hillary Clinton's trail through Latin America deserves much more public scrutiny. It is a harbinger of policies she would pursue in the White House. The People deserve to know what Bill and Hillary Clinton have done.
It is time to end the Clinton Era and to hold Hillary and Bill Clinton accountable for their actions.
