Da Aff Agenda Politics 21

WNDI 2008

1 Agenda Politics DA Aff

Agenda Politics DA Aff Agenda Politics DA Aff..............................................................................................................................................1

Agenda Politics DA Aff..................................................................................................................1 Uniqueness – Will Pass (1/3)......................................................................................................................................3

Uniqueness – Will Pass (1/3).........................................................................................................3 Uniqueness – Will Pass (2/3)......................................................................................................................................4

Uniqueness – Will Pass (2/3).........................................................................................................4 Uniqueness – Will Pass (3/3)......................................................................................................................................5

Uniqueness – Will Pass (3/3).........................................................................................................5 Thumpers (1/1)............................................................................................................................................................6

Thumpers (1/1)...............................................................................................................................6 Links – Partisan (1/1)..................................................................................................................................................7

Links – Partisan (1/1)....................................................................................................................7 Links – Republicans (1/1)...........................................................................................................................................8

Links – Republicans (1/1)..............................................................................................................8 COFTA Good – Agriculture........................................................................................................................................9

COFTA Good – Agriculture..........................................................................................................9 COFTA Good – Agriculture (1/1).............................................................................................................................10

COFTA Good – Agriculture (1/1)...............................................................................................10 COFTA Good – Competitiveness (1/2).....................................................................................................................11

COFTA Good – Competitiveness (1/2).......................................................................................11 COFTA Good – Competitiveness (2/2).....................................................................................................................12

COFTA Good – Competitiveness (2/2).......................................................................................12 COFTA Good – Chavez (1/1)...................................................................................................................................13

COFTA Good – Chavez (1/1)......................................................................................................13 COFTA Good – LA Democracy Promotion (1/2).....................................................................................................14

COFTA Good – LA Democracy Promotion (1/2)......................................................................14 COFTA Good – LA Democracy Promotion (2/2).....................................................................................................15

COFTA Good – LA Democracy Promotion (2/2)......................................................................15 LA Democracy Promotion Good – Environment (1/1).............................................................................................16

LA Democracy Promotion Good – Environment (1/1).............................................................16 LA Democracy Promotion Good – Economy (1/1)..................................................................................................17

LA Democracy Promotion Good – Economy (1/1)....................................................................17 COFTA Good – Economy (1/1)................................................................................................................................18

COFTA Good – Economy (1/1)...................................................................................................18

WNDI 2008

2 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Terrorism (1/3)................................................................................................................................19

COFTA Good – Terrorism (1/3)..................................................................................................19 COFTA Good – Terrorism (2/3)................................................................................................................................20

COFTA Good – Terrorism (2/3)..................................................................................................20 COFTA Good – Terrorism (3/3)................................................................................................................................21

COFTA Good – Terrorism (3/3)..................................................................................................21 COFTA Good – Latin American Relations (1/1)......................................................................................................22

COFTA Good – Latin American Relations (1/1).......................................................................22

WNDI 2008

3 Agenda Politics DA Aff

Uniqueness – Will Pass (1/3) COFTA will pass – congressional delegation Farm Futures, 7/17/2008, “Schafer Leads Congressional Delegation to Colombia,” http://www.farmfutures.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=CD26BEDECA4A4946A1283CC7786AEB5A&nm=News&typ e=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=8425B28418D44B1C9D62E 5A504C6176B A Congressional delegation will leave July 18 for Cartegena, Colombia on a trip to showcase the country's advances in democracy, security and human rights. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer will lead the bi-partisan group and try to emphasize the importance of ratifying the pending free trade agreement with Colombia. "Colombia is an important friend and trading partner of the United States," Schafer said. "This trip will provide Congressional members with an invaluable opportunity to see first hand the Colombian government's success in bringing about stability and economic growth, and how the CTPA will help to continue this progress. We will also be able to see new markets for U.S. agricultural exports." Trade benefits for U.S. agricultural producers in this market will be achieved through immediate elimination of variable tariffs, with half of U.S. exports entering duty-free as soon as the CTPA is implemented, most tariffs being phased out in 15 years, and all within 19 years. In calendar year 2007, the United States shipped a record $1.2 billion worth of agricultural products to Colombia. Colombia is also an important agricultural supplier to the U.S. marketplace. Major U.S. imports from Colombia include coffee, nursery products, cut flowers and bananas and plantains.

COFTA will pass – newspaper endorsements, democratic switches, and Uribe popularity NYT, Steven R. Weisman, 7/13/2008, “Colombia Trade Deal is Threatened,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13trade.html?ref=americas To President Bush, the free-trade deal his administration negotiated with Colombia has something for everyone. If approved by Congress, it would open a new market for American produce and manufactured goods. Unlike other trade deals, it would not threaten American jobs, because imports from Colombia are already coming in nearly duty-free. And it would have the added benefit of shoring up a respected ally, President Álvaro Uribe, who has made progress in taming the narcotics traffickers, right-wing death squads and left-wing guerrillas that had almost made Colombia a failed state. In recent months, nearly 100 newspapers in the United States have endorsed the Colombia trade agreement. So have many top Democrats, including Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago. And Mr. Uribe, who was already popular in Congress, was widely lionized after the dramatic rescue of hostages in Colombia on July 2.

WNDI 2008

4 Agenda Politics DA Aff

Uniqueness – Will Pass (2/3) The FTA will pass – hostage rescue The Boston Globe, Marc Grossman, 7/10/2008, “Opening up trade with Colombia,” Lexis COLOMBIA'S brilliant liberation of 15 hostages, including three Americans held for years by the narcoterrorist group FARC, is fantastic news, not just for the hostages, their families, and the Colombian government, but for all who support Colombia's fight to protect and perfect its democracy. The freeing of these hostages, along with the death last March of Manuel Marulanda, the long-time leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, provides a defining strategic opportunity for the US Congress to approve the pending US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The daring hostage rescue and the demise of the FARC leader, who for 40 years used violence, kidnapping, and intimidation to try to overthrow Colombia's democracy, will open new possibilities in Colombia, perhaps including the final collapse of the FARC itself. This makes it the perfect time for Congress to show that America supports the struggle for Colombia's democracy and recognizes that this fight is not solely a military question but requires creating jobs, enhancing human rights, and protecting labor leaders. When President Clinton, with strong congressional backing, committed the United States to bolstering Colombia's defense of its democracy, much of that nation was controlled by the FARC along with the paramilitary United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC, and the National Liberation Army, or ELN, the two other narco-terrorist groups that long plagued the country. President Bush and Congress have continued strong US support for Colombia. Taking advantage of US assistance, Colombian presidents Andres Pastrana and Alvaro Uribe turned their country around and got most ELN and AUC fighters off the battlefield. This process has not been perfect. More needs to be done to make sure that paramilitary and other leaders of illegal armed groups face the consequences of their actions. But since Colombia adopted the Justice and Peace Law in 2005, more than 31,000 members from 35 paramilitary groups, principally from the AUC, have demobilized. More than 10,500 members of the FARC and the ELN have turned themselves in to Colombian authorities since 2002. Since Uribe took office that same year, security in Colombia has improved significantly. The government of Colombia has expanded police presence throughout the country and is now able to provide protection against violence to more than 10,600 individuals, including more than 1,900 trade union members. The Colombian government has also continued to battle narco-trafficking. When the US House leadership chose not to bring the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to a vote in April, some opponents said that Uribe did not take seriously the atrocities committed by the paramilitary groups. Last May 13, Uribe extradited 14 paramilitary leaders to the United States to face drug trafficking and other charges. They had failed to meet their commitments under the terms of the Justice and Peace Law, including compensating their victims. The extradition of these individuals alone ought to persuade the House to now approve the agreement. Colombia is America's fourth largest trading partner in Latin America and the largest export market for US agricultural products in South America. The US market is already open to duty-free imports from Colombia. The US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement will give American businesses, farmers, ranchers, and workers similar access to the Colombian market. When it takes effect, more than 80 percent of US exports of consumer and industrial goods to Colombia will enter the country duty-free, creating opportunities for Americans. Colombians have more work to do to make their society truly secure, democratic, and just. They have earned respect for what they have accomplished so far and deserve continuing US support. The hostage rescue and the death of a narco-terrorist leader provide the chance for a bipartisan show of engagement with Latin America. Congress should seize it immediately.

WNDI 2008

5 Agenda Politics DA Aff

Uniqueness – Will Pass (3/3) Will pass – democrat switching sides, Colombian popularity, and Bush push NYT, Steven R. Weisman, 7/13/2008, “Colombia Trade Deal is Threatened,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13trade.html?ref=americas Some Democrats say a deal could emerge in the closing weeks of Congress this fall, perhaps in discussions over a new package to stimulate the economy. Within the administration, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, and Susan C. Schwab, the United States trade representative, are believed by Democrats and some Republicans to be more receptive to that sort of deal than is the White House, which is trying to limit spending. The White House and Senate Democrats have made some progress on negotiating an agreement on spending for “trade adjustment assistance” for workers who have lost jobs because of imports or outsourcing to other countries. But for now, each side accuses the other of bad faith in refusing to negotiate on other programs for workers. What Mr. Bush has done instead is wage one of his most elaborate campaigns for a measure in Congress since he took office in 2001, winning newspaper endorsements from the broadest political spectrum. Also, since August, at least 55 members of Congress, including two Democrats from the Senate and 25 from the House, have traveled to Colombia, in trips usually led by an indefatigable cheerleader for the trade pact, either Ms. Schwab or the commerce secretary, Carlos M. Gutierrez. The White House says Mr. Bush has called for passage of the deal 40 times, and Ms. Schwab and other cabinet members have given 145 speeches on it. In addition, the administration has lined up the support of Democratic mayors and members of the Clinton administration, and obtained endorsements from trade associations with ties to Democrats, including those for the movie, music and consumer electronics industries. Democrats acknowledge that perhaps a third of their members of Congress are ready to support the deal, but only if the leadership wins more concessions on other legislation relating to jobs. In May, Mr. Bush stood before a tractor and a Harley-Davidson motorcycle on the White House South Lawn and said that 40 percent of United States growth last year resulted from exports. “That motorcycle right there,” he said, would be $4,000 less expensive in Colombia because of the deal. “There will be no diminution of how cool one is when they drive a Harley,” the president said, to laughter. “But it’s going to be easier for somebody to buy it.”

COFTA will pass – hostage crisis Inside U.S. Trade, 7/11/2008, “Colombia FTA Supporters See Hostage Rescue Influencing Congress,” Lexis Commerce Undersecretary Christopher Padilla this week said he does not want to use last week's hostage rescue staged by the Colombian military to advance the congressional passage of the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. But pro-FTA lobbyists insist Congress has responded positively to the July 2 rescue of 15 high-profile hostages including three Americans, and this bodes well for FTA passage. In a July 9 speech, Padilla insisted the hostage rescue is "something good in and of itself," and that he does not want to use it "as a trade message." He also declined to comment on whether the rescue would make it easier for the administration to shore up support for the FTA for national security and foreign policy reasons. At the same time, he insisted that the hostage rescue illustrates that Colombia is no longer the country that FTA opponents claim it is. "The opponents are saying that the Colombian government and military are somehow responsible for an orchestrated campaign against union leaders," he said. "This is plainly not true and I think this latest rescue shows that this a highly professional, highly disciplined and very competent military backed by a very competent government." One pro-FTA observer said Padilla appears to be reluctant to directly link the hostage rescue to the FTA as a safeguard against charges that the FTA does not stand on its own as a commercially significant agreement. The Bush administration in the past has clearly advocated for a congressional vote on the FTA for foreign policy and national security reasons, however. Lobbyists said this week they believe the rescue has generated positive "buzz" for the Colombian government that will help erode House Democratic opposition to the FTA. Before the rescue, an FTA opponent had said he finds a "surprising" amount of support among House Democrats for the FTA as a foreign policy initiative. The first test of how much the rescue may resonate could come in the number of Democrats who sign a letter generated by Reps. James Moran (D-VA) and Jerry Weller (R-IL). Both sent out a dear colleague letter on July 8 to generate signatures for a letter to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe congratulating him on the successful completion of the mission. The letter says the rescue shows Colombian determination to "prevail over those who fight against democracy and peace," and does not mention the FTA at all.

WNDI 2008

6 Agenda Politics DA Aff

Thumpers (1/1) Other issues key – stimulus NYT, Steven R. Weisman, 7/13/2008, “Colombia Trade Deal is Threatened,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13trade.html?ref=americas As the price for approval of the Colombia deal, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker and a California Democrat, demands specifically that the administration expand programs for American workers. She blocked the agreement from coming to a vote in April, infuriating Mr. Bush. Her aides have not set a specific price, but some Democrats say it would have to be at least $30 billion for items such as worker training, children’s health programs, unemployment benefits and expenditures on roads, bridges and infrastructure.

WNDI 2008

7 Agenda Politics DA Aff

Links – Partisan (1/1) Energy policy  partisanship The Island Packet, 6/30/2008, “Don’t hold energy policy hostage to partisan politics,” http://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/letters/story/536168.html Dealing with our energy crisis should not be a partisan political issue, but it is. For more than 25 years, Republicans consistently have promoted fossil fuels and opposed federal funding for renewable sources, such as wind and solar energy. Our political parties polarized on energy policy in the 1970s. At that time, oil exporting countries created OPEC, which then quickly quadrupled the price of oil. In response, President Carter and the Democratic Congress planned for energy independence. Among other measures, they doubled gas mileage standards for cars, and they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into conservation and alternative energy sources. Carter even installed solar panels on the White House. When Reagan succeeded Carter in 1980, he removed those solar panels, and his budget gutted research and development funding for alternative energy. Most Republicans have followed Reagan's stand against renewables ever since. A story in the June 18 Packet reported that Senate Republicans had once again blocked a Democratic bill to fund renewable energy. And in the ongoing presidential race, Republican John McCain still preaches reliance on the fossil fuels that produced our present predicament. Isn't the case against fossil fuels obvious? Their production and distribution can devastate the land or sea; their consumption pollutes the air worldwide; rising global demand and limited supply mean ever escalating prices; and the cost of imported oil sends American treasure to foreign countries that fund terrorism. By contrast, Barack Obama and the Democrats advocate energy sources that are clean, inexhaustible and made right here in the USA.

WNDI 2008

8 Agenda Politics DA Aff

Links – Republicans (1/1) Republicans will oppose plan Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/2008, “Stalled for Now, Climate Change Bill May Find Broader Support in Future,” Lexis Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure, this doesn’t mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables may be, even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be “exploring for more oil and gas. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project, you need to start with more oil drilling.” And Cornyn, who hails from the nation’s chief oil state, backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and wind power, but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. There’s a large consensus of people who think we need to be good stewards of the environment. We all realize we can’t live on a petroleum-based economy indefinitely,” Cornyn said. “But the problem with our friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution.” Still, Democrats see promise in the new Republican renewables movement. “There’s greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy,” Bingaman said. “We are hoping to be able to move ahead in that area. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been.” In the House, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the “game-changers.” “The lines that were drawn clearly about what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill — those are changing. Those old battle lines aren’t necessarily true anymore,” he said.

WNDI 2008

9 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Agriculture Deal key to American agriculture BusinessWeek, Avi Salzman, 7/17/2008, “The State of Play on Trade: Trade deal with Colombia, Korea, and panama, all rife with stalled in Congress. In the meantime, some U.S. exports lag,” http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2008/db20080716_265355.htm?chan=top+news_top+ne ws+index_news+%2B+analysis Agriculture would also benefit. Colombian farmers already enjoy open access to U.S. markets—99.9% of their products, such as coffee and flowers, enter the U.S. duty-free, according to the U.S. Agriculture Dept. Yet all U.S. agricultural exports to Colombia pay tariffs—apples, for instance, are charged a 15% rate. If the deal is passed, 52% of U.S. farm goods will become duty-free immediately and the remaining tariffs will be phased out over 15 years. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates the deal could be worth $910 million to U.S. agricultural businesses. In return, Colombia's current duty-free treatment under the Andean Trade Preference Act would become permanent.

WNDI 2008

10 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Agriculture (1/1) COFTA key to livestock and poultry agriculture US Ag Net, 7/102008, “Corn, Pork Producers Urge Congress to Support Free Trade Agreements,” http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-national.php?Id=1609&yr=2008 At a trade symposium this week in Indianapolis, the National Corn Growers Association and the National Pork Producers Council urged participants to ask Congress to vote in favor of free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The organizations said the implementation of the free trade agreements will provide significant support to the economy in the United States and abroad. "The trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama have been skillfully negotiated on behalf of U.S. agriculture," the groups said in a letter they asked conference attendees to send to their members of Congress. "The trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama will cut tariffs and barriers to trade that currently restrict products from ever entering these countries." NCGA President Ron Litterer noted that trade agreements-particularly with Colombia-will provide access for the country's grain, pork, poultry, and dairy needs. Litterer said trade with Colombia will improve the standard of living for both trading partners. "The free trade agreements go a long way in supporting rural agriculture," Litterer said. "With Colombia's current tariff for corn at 68 percent, the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement will have immediate duty free access to the country's market for 2.1 million metric tons of corn." David Hardin, Indiana Pork Producers Association past president, said the Colombia agreement provides the United States with preferential access to the Colombian market. "The Colombia free trade provides new market access to U.S. pork producers and will add $1.63 per market animal," Hardin said. "We are pleased that Colombia has agreed to accept pork from all U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected processing facilities." The National Corn Growers Association, in conjunction with the Indiana Corn Marketing Council, National Pork Producers Council and Indiana Pork Producers Association, hosted the 2008 Corn and Pork Trade Symposium Tuesday in Indianapolis. During the event, participants learned about how trade impacts the corn and pork industries. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was the keynote speaker. Dermot Hayes, Iowa State University; Paul Drazek, DTB Associates, LLP; and James Wiesemeyer, Informa Economics provided trade economics and policy presentations.

WNDI 2008

11 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Competitiveness (1/2) Deal key to American competitiveness BusinessWeek, Avi Salzman, 7/17/2008, “The State of Play on Trade: Trade deal with Colombia, Korea, and panama, all rife with stalled in Congress. In the meantime, some U.S. exports lag,” http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2008/db20080716_265355.htm?chan=top+news_top+ne ws+index_news+%2B+analysis While politicians debate the merits and shortfalls of free trade, businesses are dealing with the on-theground reality of the costs and quirks of the trade system as it exists now. As the case of the Colombian mining trucks shows, billions of dollars hang in the balance. Manufacturers like Caterpillar that make equipment used in large-scale mining desperately want better access to Colombia's growing economy. "Every day that goes by, we lose the opportunity to export manufactured goods," says Doug Goudie, the director of international trade policy for the National Association of Manufacturers. Goudie says he is concerned Colombia will ink deals with the European Union and Canada while the U.S. continues to hold back. Benefits, Support, and Opposition Supporters of the deal expect it could prove as lucrative as the 2004 free-trade agreement with Chile, which more than doubled trade with that country in less than four years. The Colombia deal would immediately make more than 80% of consumer and industrial goods exported by the U.S. duty-free. Right now, U.S. exporters pay 14% tariffs on goods sent to Colombia, on average, Goudie says.

Competitiveness Key to Heg Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly 1995 U.S. superiority in new weapons and their use would be critical. U.S. planners should therefore give higher priority to research on new technologies, new concepts of operation, and changes in organization, with the aim of U.S. dominance in the military technical revolution that may be emerging. They should also focus on how to project U.S. systems and interests against weapons based on new technologies. The Persian Gulf War gave a glimpse of the likely future. The character of warfare will change because of advances in military technology, where the United States has the lead, and in corresponding concepts of operation and organizational structure. The challenge is to sustain this lead in the face of the complacency that the current U.S. lead in military power is likely to engender. Those who are seeking to be rivals to the United States are likely to be very motivated to explore new technologies and how to use them against it. A determined nation making the right choices, even though it possessed a much smaller economy, could pose an enormous challenge by exploiting breakthroughs that made more traditional U.S. military methods less effective by comparison. For example, Germany, by making the right technical choices and adopting innovative concepts for their use in the 1920s and 1930s, was able to make a serious bid for world domination. At the same time, Japan, with a relatively small GNP compared to the other major powers, especially the United States, was at the forefront of the development of naval aviation and aircraft carriers. These examples indicate that a major innovation in warfare provides ambitious powers an opportunity to become dominant or near-dominant powers. U.S. domination of the emerging military-technical revolution, combined with the maintenance of a force of adequate size, can help to discourage the rise of a rival power by making potential rivals believe that catching up with the United States is a hopeless proposition and that if they try they will suffer the same fate as the former Soviet Union.

Leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995 Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous

advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

WNDI 2008

12 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Competitiveness (2/2) COFTA key to competitiveness Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, 7/14/2008, “Exports key to Detroit’s future,” http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080714/OPINION01/807140332 To grow exports of clean technology, and other American products, we need to expand access to overseas markets for U.S. goods and services. Free trade agreements are the best way to do this. There are three FTAs pending before Congress with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that would give Michigan's workers and companies increased access to 100 million consumers. Last year, Michigan's export shipments of merchandise to Korea totaled $627 million. That was an increase of 72 percent since 2003. A free trade agreement with South Korea would level the playing field and provide U.S. automotive exporters a competitive advantage in gaining access to the Korean market. To compete in the global economy, Detroit -- and America -- need smart, pro-growth policies that get it right -- on energy, the environment and trade. Getting it right demands that we stay open to new ideas for powering our economy, open to innovations that will help us meet the challenges of climate change and open to new markets that will grow our exports and our economy.

WNDI 2008

13 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Chavez (1/1) Failure of COFTA strengthens COFTA AP, 10/22/2007, “Failure to pass free trade agreement with Colombia would help Chavez, US says,” Lexis The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush warned Monday that failure by Congress to adopt a free trade agreement with Colombia would in effect bolster the anti-American campaign of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. "If it doesn't pass, someone like Chavez, if not Chavez himself, is undoubtedly going to make the argument that the United States doesn't take care of its friends," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said, "and we wish not to give that argument to our adversaries in the region." Since Democrats took control of Congress last January, it has not approved any free trade agreements that the administration has negotiated. Agreements are pending with three countries in Latin America — Peru, Panama and Colombia — and also with South Korea. Chavez, a fierce critic of American economic policies in Latin America, has championed his "Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas," which counts Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua as signatories, as an alternative to U.S. free trade pacts.

And, unchecked Chavez destroys American hegemony and leads to terrorism Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Ph.D., 6/4/2008, “Big Money, Big Oil, Big Risk,” http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060408b.cfm If all this were not enough, Hugo Chavez, the socialist-fascist ruler of Venezuela, is spending billions in dollar oil subsidies to assemble an empire of dependencies in Latin America. According to evidence on a laptop taken from a dead guerilla leader in the neighboring Ecuador, Chavez supports the FARC narcoguerillas who are attempting to overthrow the democratically-elected government of President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. Chavez, an ally of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, provides cheap oil and loans to Daniel Ortega and his wife, the Sandinista rulers of Nicaragua. Chavez also supports leftist leaders and forces in Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay. Their intent is to deny the US influence and allies in South America, and ease the way for an Iranian-Hezbollah penetration of the Southern Cone.

WNDI 2008

14 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – LA Democracy Promotion (1/2) COFTA key to LA demo promo Business Wire, 3/12/2008, “Fact Sheet: U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Essential to Our National Security,” Lexis The U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement will advance our national security by strengthening a key democratic ally and sending a clear message to the region. A free trade agreement with Colombia would bring increased economic opportunity to the people of Colombia through sustained economic growth, new employment opportunities, and increased investment. This trade agreement will reinforce democracy by fighting corruption, increasing transparency, and fostering accountability and the rule of law. The agreement would bolster one of our closest friends in the hemisphere and rebut the antagonists in Latin America who say the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word.

WNDI 2008

15 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – LA Democracy Promotion (2/2) Failure of Latin American democratization cause regional proliferation and nuclear conflict Donald Schulz, Chairman of the Political Science Department at Cleveland State University, March 2000, The United States and Latin America: Shaping an Elusive Future, p. 3&26-28, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA375197&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf In short, democracy and economic integration are not simply value preferences, but are increasingly bound up with hemispheric security. To take just one example: The restoration of democracy in Brazil and Argentina and their increasingly strong and profitable relationship in Mercosur have contributed in no small degree to their decisions to forsake the development of nuclear weapons. Perceptions of threat have declined, and perceptions of the benefits of cooperation have grown, and this has permitted progress on a range of security issues from border disputes, to peacekeeping, environmental protection, counternarcotics, and the combat of organized crime. Argentina has also developed a strong bilateral defense relationship with the United States, and is now considered a non-NATO ally.

<Schulz continues> Until recently, the primary U.S. concern about Brazil has been that it might acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In the 1970s, the Brazilian military embarked on a secret program to develop an atom bomb. By the late 1980s, both Brazil and Argentina were aggressively pursuing nuclear development programs that had clear military spin-offs.54 There were powerful military and civilian advocates of developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles within both countries. Today, however, the situation has changed. As a result of political leadership transitions in both countries, Brazil and Argentina now appear firmly committed to restricting their nuclear programs to peaceful purposes. They have entered into various nuclearrelated agreements with each other—most notably the quadripartite comprehensive safeguards agreement (1991), which permits the inspection of all their nuclear installations by the International Atomic Energy Agency—and have joined the Missile Technology Control Regime. Even so, no one can be certain about the future. As Scott Tollefson has observed: • . . the military application of Brazil’s nuclear and space programs depends less on technological considerations than on political will. While technological constraints present a formidable barrier to achieving nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, that barrier is not insurmountable. The critical element, therefore, in determining the applications of Brazil’s nuclear and space technologies will be primarily political.55 Put simply, if changes in political leadership were instrumental in redirecting Brazil’s nuclear program towards peaceful purposes, future political upheavals could still produce a reversion to previous orientations. Civilian supremacy is not so strong that it could not be swept away by a coup, especially if the legitimacy of the current democratic experiment were to be undermined by economic crisis and growing poverty/inequality. Nor are civilian leaders necessarily less militaristic or more committed to democracy than the military. The example of Peru’s Fujimori comes immediately to mind. How serious a threat might Brazil potentially be? It has been estimated that if the nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis (Angra I) were only producing at 30 percent capacity, it could produce five 20-kiloton weapons a year. If production from other plants were included, Brazil would have a capability three times greater than India or Pakistan. Furthermore, its defense industry already has a substantial missile producing capability. On the other hand, the country has a very limited capacity to project its military power via air and sealift or to sustain its forces over long distances. And though a 1983 law authorizes significant military manpower increases (which could place Brazil at a numerical level slightly higher than France, Iran and Pakistan), such growth will be restricted by a lack of economic resources. Indeed, the development of all these military potentials has been, and will continue to be, severely constrained by a lack of money. (Which is one reason Brazil decided to engage in arms control with Argentina in the first p1ace.) In short, a restoration of Brazilian militarism, imbued with nationalistic ambitions for great power status, is not unthinkable, and such a regime could present some fairly serious problems. That government would probably need foreign as well as domestic enemies to help justify it’s existence. One obvious candidate would be the United States, which would presumably be critical of any return to dictatorial rule. Beyond this, moreover, the spectre of a predatory international community, covetous of the riches of the Amazon, could help rally political support to the regime. For years, some Brazilian military officers have been warning of “foreign intervention.” Indeed, as far back as 1991 General Antenor de Santa Cruz Abreu, then chief of the Military Command of the Amazon, threatened to transform the region into a “new Vietnam” if developed countries tried to “internationalize” the Amazon. Subsequently, in 1993, U.S.-Guyanese combined military exercises near the Brazilian border provoked an angry response from many high-ranking Brazilian officers.57 Since then, of course, U.S.-Brazilian relations have improved considerably. Nevertheless, the basic U.S./ international concerns over the Amaazon—the threat to the region’s ecology through burning and deforestation, the presence of narcotrafficking activities, the Indian question, etc.—have not disappeared, and some may very well intensify in the years ahead. At the same time, if the growing trend towards subregional economic groupings—in particular, MERCOSUR—continues, it is likely to increase competition between Southern Cone and NAFTA countries. Economic conflicts, in turn, may be expected to intensify political differences, and could lead to heightened politico-military rivalry between different blocs or coalitions in the hemisphere.

WNDI 2008

16 Agenda Politics DA Aff

LA Democracy Promotion Good – Environment (1/1) Latin American democratization leads to environmental protection Jamie Elizabeth Jacobs, Professor of Political Science at West Virginia University, Winter 2002, Latin American Politics & Society, p. 59-60 In Brazil and other Latin American countries attempting to strengthen democracy, the mobilization of civil society forms a widely recognized part of that democratization. Part of this mobilization may be participation in ecological movements and other social movements and civic organizations. Though environmentalism cannot be relied on as a driving factor for democratization in general, it can be seen as an important component of the changes taking place in the politics and society of transitional democracies (Hicks 1996). Political participation and interest in environmental policy at the grassroots involves people in the struggle for citizenship, rights and government accountability in the democratic process.

That’s key to protecting half the world’s biodiversity WWF, 11-13-2005, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/latin_america_and_caribbean/problems/index.cfm The Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region embraces almost half of the world's diversity of plant and animal species and half of the world's tropical forests. Yet the rate of destruction of freshwater, marine and especially forest habitat could seriously impact both biodiversity and forest cover. According to various sources, Brazil loses around 1% of its forests annually, while Paraguay, if it continues at its present rate of forest destruction, will have virtually no native forests left in 25 years from now. Among the threats behind environmental destruction and degradation in the LAC region are the lack of policy frameworks to support sustainable development and natural resource preservation; political instability and civil unrest; inability of some institutional and governmental entities to establish and enforce legislation impacting nature conservation; economic downturn; poverty and inequality.

Biodiversity is key to prevent extinction Les Kaufman, Chief Scientist at Edgerton Research Lab, 1993 THE LAST EXTINCTION, p. 4 MDP The fourth argument for preserving biological diversity is the simplest: Our lives depend on it. We are part of a common fabric of life. Our survival is dependent on the integrity of this fabric, for the loss of a few critical threads could lead to a quick unraveling of the whole. We know that there have been previous mass extinctions, through which some life survived. As for our own chances of surviving this mass extinction, there can be no promises. If the Grim Reaper plays any favorites at all, then it would seem to be a special fondness for striking down dominant organisms in their prime. David Joblinski examines the fates of rudist dames, mammalike reptiles, dinosaurs, and a host of other scintillating but doomed creatures in his essay. Humans are now the dominant creatures, at least in terms of their influence. So, lest history bear false witness and barring some serious conservation efforts on our part, this mass extinction could well be the last one that we will ever know about.

WNDI 2008

17 Agenda Politics DA Aff

LA Democracy Promotion Good – Economy (1/1) Failure of Latin American democratization destabilizes the region Donald E. Schulz, professor of political science at Cleveland State University, Spring 2001, Parameters The first theme concerns the importance of democracy for US interests. Unfortunately, terrorism cannot be restricted to the violence of non-state actors. Latin American history is replete with episodes of state terrorism. Often, indeed, state terrorism has been a major contributor to the rise of guerrilla movements, as for instance in the Central American wars of the 1970s and 1980s. [1] In those cases, democratic transitions became a critical factor in defusing civil war. Today, democracy continues to serve as an important legitimizing force, inhibiting both state and non-state terrorism. Its decline would have ominous implications for the region's political stability.

Latin American instability collapses the U.S. economy Boris Saavedra, retired Brigadier General in the Venezuelan Air Force, Fall 2003, Security and Defense Studies Review, http://www.ndu.edu/chds/journal/PDF/2003-0403/Saavedra-article.pdf, p. 215 The United States shares with its Latin American neighbors an increasingly and vitally important financial, commercial, and security partnership. Any kind of political-economic-social-security deterioration in the region will profoundly affect the health of the U.S. economy—and the concomitant power to act in the global security arena.

Economic collapse causes extinction Lt. Col, Tom Bearden, PhD Nuclear Engineering, April 25, 2000, http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of the [wmd] weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then--as all the old strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to

survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.

WNDI 2008

18 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Economy (1/1) Colombia FTA would provide boost to the economy and help lagging industries The Daily News, 7/16/2008, “Trade pact with Colombia benefits state, nation,” http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/07/16/editorial/doc487d08885969b230276894.txt The U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement now awaiting congressional approval could deliver a timely boost to the national economy. But there seems little prospect for approval of any free trade pact in this election year. Democratic leaders in Congress and the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee have made their opposition to new trade agreements a major campaign issue. Sadly, it’s an issue that may resonate with an anxious public. Protectionist sentiment tends to flourish during uncertain economic times. Yet, as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke noted in a speech last year at Montana Tech in Butte, Mont., “Restricting trade by imposing tariffs, quotas and other barriers is exactly the wrong thing to do. In the long run, economic isolationism and retreat from international competition would inexorably lead to lower productivity for U.S. firms and lower living standards for U.S. consumers.” This is Economics 101. Trade protectionism invariably costs more jobs than are protected. Most in Congress understand the benefits of expanded international trade, even though many may now find it politically expedient to rail against the North American Free Trade Agreement and pending trade agreements. They also must know that there is no downside to approving the U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement. The United States, in fact, is the net beneficiary in this trade agreement. Colombia already sells nearly all of its products to the United States duty-free. Conversely, U.S. products sold to Colombia are subject to tariffs of up to 35 percent for non-agricultural goods and higher for agricultural exports. The pending trade agreement would eliminate more than 80 percent of those tariffs. Significantly, Washington state would be among the largest beneficiaries of the trade agreement with Colombia. Products in aviation, medical and scientific fields, and agriculture — all important sectors in this state’s economy — would be sold duty-free to Colombia under the pact. Washington growers have much at stake in this trade deal. U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., observed last spring that Colombia is the second-largest market for U.S. farm products in Latin America, and upon enactment of the agreement, Colombian tariffs of U.S. apples, pears, cherries and beef would disappear. Indeed, Washington has particular cause for concern over the Democratic-led Congress’ current tilt toward protectionism. International trade largely determines this state’s economic well-being. Washington exports more on a per capita basis than any other state, according to the governor’s Global Competitiveness Council. The council has reported that one in three jobs in the state is supported by international trade. The U.S.Colombian Free Trade Agreement would amount to an economic shot in the arm — for both Washington and the nation as a whole. Congress should seize this opportunity to expand trade.

WNDI 2008

19 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Terrorism (1/3) COFTA key to check narcoterrorism NYT, Steven R. Weisman, 7/13/2008, “Colombia Trade Deal is Threatened,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13trade.html?ref=americas To President Bush, the free-trade deal his administration negotiated with Colombia has something for everyone. If approved by Congress, it would open a new market for American produce and manufactured goods. Unlike other trade deals, it would not threaten American jobs, because imports from Colombia are already coming in nearly duty-free. And it would have the added benefit of shoring up a respected ally, President Álvaro Uribe, who has made progress in taming the narcotics traffickers, right-wing death squads and left-wing guerrillas that had almost made Colombia a failed state.

Narcoterrorism key tow world terrorism St. Petersburg Times, David Adams, 3/10/2003, “Narcoterrosim needs attention,” http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/10/Columns/_Narcoterrorism__need.shtml No one more so than Gen. James T. Hill, the military commander of the U.S. Southern Command, in Miami. When Hill addressed a regional security conference in Miami last week, attended by 300 academics and military brass, he didn't pull punches. "Narcoterrorism" in Latin America is fueling "radical Islamic groups" such as Hamas and Hezbollah, he said. These groups are exploiting weak border controls and the lack of state authority in certain "lawless" areas, to "generate hundreds of millions of dollars through drug and arms trafficking with narcoterrorists." This was "fact, not speculation," he stressed. Hill said he wasn't pointing fingers at any one country. "I don't have enough fingers," he said. He did, however, go on to pick out some of those "lawless" places, including the so-called triborder area, a curious dot on the map where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay converge, and the Venezuelan island of Margarita in the Caribbean. The notion of Islamic radicals in those places might sound like a new threat from an unexpected quarter. In fact, these allegations have been around for a while. What was new this time was the emphatic way Hill delivered it, and the message of a "clear and present danger" it carried.

WNDI 2008

20 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Terrorism (2/3) Unchecked terrorism will result in extinction Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies in Israel and the United States. “Terrorism myths and realities,” The Washington Times, August 28, 2003 Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary

terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For

without victory, there is no survival."

WNDI 2008

21 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Terrorism (3/3) COFTA is key to prevent narcoterrorism Human Events Online, Erika Anderson, “Colombia Free Trade Agreement in Trouble,” Lexis Colombia's patience -- sometimes valuable in the war on narcotics -- may soon wear thin because the U.S. Congress is continuing to stall a vote on a Free Trade Agreement, in limbo since its signing 590 days ago in November of 2006. White House Undersecretary for International Trade Christopher A. Padilla said Congress is holding the CFTA hostage to election year politics, having refused it even a debate on the House floor due to Congress' disagreement with President Bush over "protocol" measures and concerns for labor unions in the country. At a meeting at the Heritage Foundation Tuesday, Padilla reported that Americans have paid $1.1 billion in tariffs -- import product taxes -- to the Colombian government. Colombia, though, exports about 92 percent of their products to us duty free, in what Padilla tagged "one-way free trade." A result of the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which was enacted to help fight drug trafficking and alleviate poverty in Colombia, the U.S. opened its market to Colombian imports, but did not remedy things positively for the U.S. Enacting the CFTA would benefit both countries by reducing barriers for the US and installing trading security for Colombia. The CFTA would significantly decrease the tax burden on Americans and increase American exports. The current trade agreement between the countries is set to run out on December 31, 2008. If the measure doesn't come to the floor for a vote, it could expire under the 110th Congress. Earlier this year, President Bush signed a letter to Congress designed to move forth legislation to implement the CFTA, but progress remains to be seen -- even though 9,000 American companies that do business with Colombia would likely benefit economically, according to a recent report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. As trading partners worldwide move forward, the U.S. lags behind and Padilla noted pending trade agreements with Korea and Panama as well. "The Koreans are negotiating with the EU, with Canada, and they're even talking to the Chinese...so if we really want to stand by and watch East Asia integrate around China as opposed to integrating with the United States, well, that's what happens if we turn our backs on allies like Korea," Padilla said. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a principal force against moving the CFTA to the floor for a vote but Padilla cited that "10 or 11 Democrats" have voted against her position. Representatives Gregory Meeks (NY), Joseph Crowley (NY), Jim Matheson (Utah), and Jim Cooper (Tenn.) all support the agreement. Earlier this year, Pelosi and the Democrats on the House Rules Committee were able to change established congressional rules for "fast tracking" trade agreements because President Bush had planned to send the measure to Capitol Hill without the support of Democratic leaders. Padilla believes the rule changes are actually "a trend toward economic isolationism on the part of the Congressional leadership, and not these excuses about needing more time or labor environment issues." Colombia has already signed and renegotiated their side of the agreement but the U.S. hasn't finalized their end. Padilla said that if the Congress hasn't acted by the December date, the Colombians will not have a preferential benefit any more. The U.S. has free trade agreements with Central America, Peru and Chile, and Colombia may fear they will lose jobs from people investing in countries more available to free trade. President Bush said the CFTA will advance America's national security interests, strengthen Colombia and help America's economy and workers. The Bush Administration has pushed the measure, having more than 50 members of Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- visit the country for assessment purposes. "[My Grandma] would say throwing away coupons from the Sunday paper is like throwing away free money...The good news is we have a coupon that would eliminate all of the tariffs on our products, in most cases immediately as soon as the trade agreement goes into effect...And the coupon as of today is worth $1.1 billion, and it's called the Colombia Free Trade Agreement," Padilla said. According to CEI, the CFTA would make it so "more than 80 percent of consumer and industrial products exported to Colombia would enter that country duty-free immediately." By enacting the agreement, America could also decrease import prices, thereby relieving price anxieties on Colombia and helping to improve their economy overall. Economics aside, accepting the CFTA would amp up American national

security interests. Colombia has successfully battled the domestic terrorist group FARC by upholding democracy and maintaining free markets under President Alvaro Uribe, who enjoys an 80% approval rating. Colombia is surrounded by dangerous countries like Venezuela, who would be more than happy to assist them in coming up against the US should we prove unreliable. "I think the debate about Colombia is an important litmus test in many ways for whether America is going to remain committed to the policies of openness, the basic idea that we are better as a society because we are open to foreign trade and investment," Padilla said.

WNDI 2008

22 Agenda Politics DA Aff

COFTA Good – Latin American Relations (1/1) Approval of Columbia FTA is key to US-Latin American relations – swamps other FTA’s Washington Times, 6-29-2007 The treatment accorded President Uribe on his recent visit to the United States stunned Colombian political leaders and commentators. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blatantly took Colombia's leader to task for reported corruption and human-rights abuses by several politicians and military officials, completely ignoring that Uribe-inspired legislation led to the investigations, arrests and prosecutions of the malefactors. Former Vice President Al Gore, who had met with Mr. Uribe on numerous previous occasions, canceled an arranged meeting on grounds suspicious, unresolved human rights issues made a meeting "inappropriate." Corruption and human rights are major issues in Colombia as in most developing countries. However, when its leaders are castigated for conducting a campaign against these evils, bewilderment and disgust abound. But back to Mr. Chavez and the - undoubtedly unintended - tender loving care bestowed on him and his friends by defeat of the U.S.-Colombian free trade agreement. A group of Venezuelan politicians visiting Bogota in May made great strides with leftist Colombian politicians, particularly leaders of the Polo Democratico Party, formed by extreme-left academics and former guerrillas. The Venezuelan delegation leader was quoted as saying it was imperative for all Polo Democratico members of Colombia's Congress and their supporters to oppose approval of the FTA-TLC. "They have taken this position for one reason only," notes Mr. Schlesinger. "They know that a functioning free trade agreement will draw Colombia closer to the United States, and that's the last thing they want. Today, Hugo Chavez is the dominant political figure throughout Latin America. He and his allies control five - arguably six governments and they want to build on that base." If Colombia is broken away from its relationship with the United States, only the Calderon administration in Mexico remains as an important target. Moreover, smaller countries like Guatemala and Uruguay will be intimidated and the region's giant, Brazil, will cease its delicate balancing act and slide in the direction of Mr. Chavez's Bolivarian revolution. It does little good to suggest there is a chance the Senate will consent to free trade agreements with Peru and Panama. While important, they are not close allies of the United States. The symbolism of not consenting to the Colombian treaty makes them pale in comparison. A senior Colombian official sums up the bitter irony: "Perhaps it was inevitable; Washington has a near perfect record of eventually dropping its friends. And, as to our fight against corruption, well, at least our crooks aren't so stupid as to put their ill-gotten rewards in their refrigerator freezers." So, as the movie line went just before our hero pulled the trigger on another bad guy, "Hasta la vista, baby." Unfortunately this time, the congressional pistol is aimed squarely at U.S. vital interests. Not quite the right kind of TLC, is it?