CSN Editorial Page
Will Other Heads of State Follow Iraq’s Example?
U.S. news media today reported that the reason why President Barack Obama is ordering all U.S. armed forces, except a few Marine guards at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and a few others with similar tasks, out of Iraq is because the Iraqi government refused to provide immunity for U.S. military personnel in Iraq. That immunity means that U.S. troops could not be taken before an Iraqi court for crimes they commit in Iraq. I am told the U.S. applies this principle throughout the world. I know it does in Colombia, where a U.S. soldier who raped a Colombia woman near the Colombian Army base where he had been assigned was quickly flown out of Colombia to the U.S. so the Colombian justice system could not prosecute him. So even the commission of heinous crimes against the host country's citizens cannot be prosecuted in that country, according to the agreement under which the U.S. troops are permitted to be in the country. In reporting on the Iraqi development today, not one of the journalists on the Public Television's program "Washington Week in Review", some of the most seasoned reporters this country has produced in recent years, raised the point that the Iraqi government was being quite reasonable in protesting against blanket immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq. Why not? Is the U.S. exempt from the rules which apply to other nations? If, for instance, Canadian or Mexican troops came to the United States for a training mission and one of them raped or murdered a U.S. citizen in this country, would we be satisfied to let that soldier go back immediately to his home country, allowing no prosecution of him in this country? I think not. The National Council of Churches, a respected church organization in this country, sent through the mail a few days ago a list religions which recognize a principle common to nearly all, if not all, of them: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Why doesn't that principle apply in this case? And why don't our best and brightest reporters question what basis the U.S. government has for requiring immunity from crimes committed by our military personnel in other countries? Are we inherently better or more virtuous than other countries? Or is it that might makes right? The fact is that this principle of immunity for crimes committed in other countries is wrong and should be abandoned. It is a slight to the sovereignty of the countries where it is applied. Its result is likely to be impunity for common crimes by U.S. military personnel committed in other countries. I believe it is time for other countries to look again at their military agreements with the U.S. and begin to insist upon the removal of the immunity clauses applied to crimes which are not a part of the service for which the U. S. troops have been invited into their country. A good place to begin would be Colombia. After the unabashed concession to U.S. interests that featured the Presidential Administration of Alvaro Uribe Velez, President Juan Manuel Santos should take a step to re-establish Colombian sovereignty by insisting that U.S. military personnel who commit common crimes, such as murder or rape of Colombian citizens, while they are stationed in Colombia, must be tried in Colombian courts. Jack Laun October 21, 2011 .
TRES CONCEPCIONES EQUIVOCADAS AL RESPECTO DEL COMERCIO INTERNACIONAL
Por John I. Laun. Presidente Colombia Support Network (CSN) Madison, WI, USA Julio 3 2011 (Traducido del original en inglés)
En los dias proximos el Congreso de los Estados Unidos pondrá en
consideración la aprobación del asi llamado "Tratado de Libre
Comercio" : (TLC) entre los Estados Unidos y Colombia. Las bases de
este acuerdo bilateral se debatieron en el Congreso de los Estados
Unidos por varios años, con un enfoque sobre derechos laborales y
sobre el terrible nivel de violencia contra los lideres sindicales en
Colombia. Aunque los ataques contra los lideres sindicales continúan
en Colombia y la efectividad de las prometidas protecciones hacia las
organizaciones sindicales es dudosa, el Presidente Obama y el
Representate para Asuntos Comerciales Ron Kirk decidieron abrazar el
TLC con Colombia como una fuente posible para la creación de trabajos
nuevos para los obreros estadounidenses.
La verdad, sin embargo, es que los tan esperados
beneficios de este TLC son una ilusión. Las expectativas que se tienen
se basan en importantes percepciones equivocadas sobre el comercio
internacional y sobre quien se beneficia de este. Para los Estados
Unidos la sugerencia de que el TLC beneficiará a los trabajadores
norteamericanos tiene una falla porque no toma en cuenta las
realidades del actual sistema económico. El hecho de que Colombia no
cobre tarifas a las importaciones provenientes de Estados Unidos no
necesariamente implicaría un aumento de trabajos en Estados Unidos,
porque muchas de las compañias norteamericanas fabrican sus productos
fuera de los Estados Unidos, tomando ventaja de la oferta de trabajo
barato. También de paises donde hay reglas muy limitadas o
inexistentes tanto del medio ambiente como para proteger la salud
ocupacional o de seguridad de los trabajadores. Por ejemplo,
Caterpillar, una compañia que históricamente ha estado basada en
Peoria, Illinois, puede que se beneficie de tasas reducidas o
inexistentes de importación en las aduanas colombianas para la
maquinaria pesada de construcción que esa empresa produce. Pero se
reporta que Caterpillar comenzó la construcción de fábricas nuevas en
la China, donde los salarios de los trabajadores son muy bajos. Quien
va a prevenirle a Caterpillar que envíe a Colombia el equipo que
produce en la China y por supuesto no aumentando el empleo en los
Estados Unidos? Hasta donde sé no hay nada que pueda prevenir esto.
Además hay muchas compañîas de los Estados Unidos que so comportan
como ya indiqué lo hace Caterpillar. La primera percepcion equivocada
por lo tanto es que la eliminación de impuestos en Colombia
necesariamente lleva a la creación de trabajos en los Estados Unidos.
Una segunda equivocación tiene que ver en como funcionan los
negocios, Se dice que el objetivo de una corporación es maximizar la
ganancia y que un aspecto fundamental del trabajo de los ejecutivos y
la Junta Directiva de una empresa es obtener el máximo de ganancias
de las operaciones de su compañia. Esto significa que si actúan
racionalmente las compañias buscarán fabricar sus productos de tal
forma que resulte en el mayor margen de ganancia posible, lo cual
significa buscar que la nómina de empleados coste lo mas bajo posible.
En nuestra sociedad parece que aun unos "liberales" toman esto como
dado. Pero esta es una malinterpretacion fundamental. Una compañia
puede funcionar con ganancias y tratar bien a sus empleados
proveyéndoles de toda clase de "beneficios". Maximizar la ganancia no
es y no debe ser el objetivo principal de un negocio. El objetivo debe
ser producir elementos que sean útiles para la sociedad y proveer un
ambiente sano en el trabajo con compensaciones para los empleados de
manera que los empodere para que ellos sean capaces de obtener lo
necesario para vivir con dignidad. A esto se le llamaba, con toda
razon, un "salario vivible". Lo cual nos trae a la tercera equivocación, que consiste
en considerar que las tarifas de protección son ipso facto malas, y
que el "comercio libre" es en su misma naturaleza bueno y deseable.
Hace años en los Estados Unidos el objetivo de la participación de
este pais en comercio internacional era "comercio balanceado" y no
"libre comercio". Esto significaba que el gobierno podía
conscientemente tratar de proteger el empleo en este pais limitando la
cantidad de productos que entraban al pais a bajo costo a través de la
aplicación de tarifas a estos productos. La glorificación de las
multinacionales o las trasnacionales, las cuales tipicamente tienen
muy poco compromiso con ningún pais, ha llevado a que el gobierno de
los Estados Unidos esencialmente abandone el concepto de comercio
balanceado. Necesitamos re establecer este concepto como el principio
guia de nuestras políticas comerciales. Esta discusión no enfatiza lo suficiente los
extraordinarios efectos negativos del propuesto TLC con Colombia.
Estos efectos se discuten en detalle en la pagina web de CSN. Basta
decir aquí que los efectos serán acabar con el acceso al Mercado para
los productores de fincas pequeñas (campesinos), causando asi mas
desplazamiento en un pais que de por si ya lidera al mundo en el
número de personas desplazadas, cerca de 4.5 millones (casi el 10% de
una poblacion de 46 millones) y que a la vez no provee suficiente
protección a sus trabajadores y a los sindicatos. Tampoco las
cláuslulas de propiedad intelectual del TLC protegen el acceso de las
comunidades indígenas a sus hierbas de medicina tradicional o le
permitirá a numerosas empresas colombianas desarrollar productos ya
fabricados por las corporaciones multinacionales y las cuales son los
verdaderos beneficiarios del TLC.
THREE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT INTERNATIONAL TRADE
In the coming days the United States Congress will be considering approval of the so-called "Free Trade Agreement" (FTA) between the United States and Colombia. The provisions of this bilateral accord have been debated in the U.S. Congress for several years, with a focus upon labor rights and the extraordinary level of violence against labor leaders in Colombia. Although attacks against labor leaders continue in Colombia and the effectiveness of promised protections for labor organizations is questionable, President Obama and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk have now embraced the FTA with Colombia as a likely source of new jobs for U.S. workers. The fact is, however, that the expected benefits of this FTA are illusory. This expectation is based upon some important misconceptions about international trade and who benefits from it. For the United States the suggestion that the FTA will benefit U.S. workers fails to take into account certain realities of the current economic system. The fact that Colombian import duties for U.S. products will be reduced or eliminated does not necessarily mean an increase in jobs in the United States, because many U.S. –based companies produce their goods outside the United States, taking advantage of cheap labor and limited or nonexistent environmental and workers' health and safety provisions in the cheap labor countries. Thus, for example, Caterpillar, a company historically based in Peoria, Illinois, may benefit from reduced Colombian import duties on heavy construction machinery the company produces. But Caterpillar has reportedly undertaken construction of new plants for production of its machinery in China, which has low labor costs. What is to prevent Caterpillar from producing the equipment it sends to Colombia in China, thus not increasing employment in the United States? As far as I know nothing is in place to prevent this. And there are plenty of other companies in the U.S. that will behave as I have indicated Caterpillar would. The first misconception, therefore, is that elimination of import duties in Colombia must necessarily lead to job creation in the United States. A second misconception has to do with how businesses operate. We hear that the goal of a corporation is to maximize profits, and that a fundamental part of the work of a company executive and the company's board of directors is to squeeze out the largest possible profits from company operations. This means that companies acting rationally will look to produce their products in the way that results in the largest profit margin, basically looking for the lowest labor costs. In our society it seems even "liberal" commentators take this as a given. But this is a fundamental misconception. A company may operate profitably even if it employs labor at a higher cost than it might find overseas, treating its employees well and providing them with what we have come to call "fringe benefits". Maximization of profits is not, and should not be, the principal goal of business. The goal should be to produce items that are useful for society and to provide a healthy work environment and compensation to employees that will enable them to obtain what they need to live in dignity. This used to be called, with reason, a "living wage". Which brings us to the third misconception, which is that protective tariffs are ipso facto bad, and that "free trade" is by its very nature good and desirable. Years ago in the United States the goal of this country's participation in international commerce was "balanced trade", not "free trade". This meant that the government would consciously try to protect employment in this country by limiting the amount of products coming into this country at lower cost through application of tariffs to the lower cost products. The glorification of multinational or transnational businesses, which typically have very little commitment to any one country, has led the U.S. government essentially to abandon the concept of balanced trade. We need to re-establish this concept as a guiding principle of U.S. trade policy. This discussion has not highlighted the extraordinarily negative effects of the proposed FTA on Colombia. These effects are discussed in detail elsewhere on the CSN website. Suffice it to say here that the effects will be virtually to end market access for food products of small-scale farmers ("campesinos"), leading to an increase in displacement in a country which already leads the world in internally displaced people with some 4.5 million displaced persons (nearly 10% of Colombia's 46 million people), while not providing significant protection to workers and their union organizations. Nor will the intellectual property provisions of the FTA protect indigenous communities' access to their traditional medicinal herbs or allow numerous Colombian businesses to develop products already produced by multinational businesses, which are the real potential beneficiaries of the FTA. John I. Laun July 3, 2011
|
|
