Colombia trade pact is decried

When union president Gregorio Melendez was shot to death as he left work in September, his murder seemed just another statistic in a country where labor organizing is a deadly endeavor.

But the still-unsolved killing of Melendez, who headed a municipal workers union in the Amazon River basin town of Arauca, and the assassinations of 55 other Colombian labor officials this year have suddenly become a pressing issue in Washington.

That’s because American and Colombian officials are expected to sign an agreement today in Washington that is aimed at boosting U.S. exports and decreasing Colombia’s dependence on drug trafficking.

The pact -- which the U.S. and Colombia hope will boost an estimated $14.3 billion in annual trade between the two countries -- is expected to be submitted to each of their legislatures for final approval next year.

Before this month’s U.S. elections, passage by a Republican-controlled Congress seemed a sure bet. But emboldened by the change of power in both houses, U.S. unions and their Democratic supporters are pushing for stronger labor provisions in the accord, as well as in pending deals with countries such as Peru and Vietnam.

They say that any victory for U.S. firms in gaining greater access to the Colombian market will be hollow as long as labor organizers are paying the ultimate price in advocating for workers.

“For all intents and purposes, there is a death sentence for trade union activism in Colombia,” said Thea Lee, director of international policy for the AFL-CIO in Washington.

Democratic leaders are angry that the Bush administration has decided to forge ahead today, despite their warnings that the new Congress would not support the trade pact without seeking revisions in the accompanying legislation. That could scuttle the deal, because Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, America’s closest ally in South America, has said he won’t return to the negotiating table.

The Democrats want the Colombian government to crack down on anti-union violence, including prosecuting those responsible for the murders of labor leaders.

“I would regret it if they decided to sign the agreement instead of having a serious consultation with us,” Rep. Sander M. Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the House trade subcommittee, said of the Bush administration. “There’s rhetoric about bipartisanship, but I would like to see some action.”

Although Democratic leaders did not specifically ask for a delay, Levin said the White House should have consulted with Congress before moving forward, given the criticisms of the deal.

But Assistant U.S. Trade Representative John Veroneau said Monday that there was no reason to delay the long-planned signing ceremony. He said that Colombia had already taken “lots of steps” to strengthen labor protections in hope of getting better access to the U.S. market and that the pact, by setting formal rules of engagement, would make it easier for the U.S. to push for further reforms.

“If the new majority has issues with the labor provisions, then obviously we are prepared to talk with them and continue the conversation,” Veroneau said.

The face-off over the Colombian trade pact reflects the level of partisan bitterness in Washington over trade.

Democrats, backed by their union supporters, say the Bush administration’s trade agenda costs jobs at home and contributes to social and environmental disruption abroad. Republicans, who are more closely allied with big business, say labor activists are simply trying to protect less-efficient U.S. industries from global competition.

“Is it just hidden protectionism using labor as an excuse to block imports from developing countries?” said Erik Autor, international trade counsel for the National Retail Federation in Washington, whose members include Gap Inc., J.C. Penney Co. and Liz Claiborne Inc.

The trade pact has sparked debate in Colombia as well.

Uribe has run into stiff opposition from critics of the pact, who fear that the country’s farmers and small and medium-size businesses would be devastated by a wave of U.S. goods and services. Uribe believes that the deal would help his country by encouraging foreign investment and strengthening the fight against drug traffickers and terrorists.

Colombia Sen. Jorge Robledo, an opposition party critic of the pact, said Monday that its passage would make it tougher to strengthen the country’s weak labor laws.

“If Colombia wasn’t offering low-cost, compliant labor and lax environmental standards, what would the appeal be to U.S. companies?” he said.

Under the pact being signed today, Colombia has agreed to enforce its labor laws. But Democratic leaders want all future free-trade pacts to include a pledge that governments will pass laws encompassing the five core International Labor Organization standards: prohibitions on child labor and forced labor, nondiscrimination and the rights to associate and to bargain collectively.

The same concerns exist with the Peru trade pact, which has been passed by the Andean nation’s legislature but still must be approved by the U.S. Congress.

“It’s a simple, clean and consistent approach,” said a Democratic aide on the House Ways and Means Committee, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the issue.

The concerns over labor are particularly keen in Colombia, where hundreds of union members have been killed in the last decade. Union officials who try to organize factories, farms and other workplaces run the risk of murder at the hands of hired thugs, often paramilitaries contracted by employers. Although the murder rate has decreased significantly in recent years, it is because workers are too fearful to risk their lives by joining unions, labor officials say.

“They don’t have to kill so many people now. The entire country is intimidated,” said Gustavo Triana, an official at CUT, the largest umbrella union group in Colombia, whose 600,000 members include public employees, teachers and oil workers.

Although Colombia’s Constitution ostensibly offers citizens the right to organize, the reality is that employers can easily fire or avoid employing unionized workers, said Tarsicio Mora Godoy, CUT’s general counsel. Instead, they legally hire workers belonging to so-called cooperatives that offer members minimum wage of about $180 a month and little or no health insurance or pension benefits, he said.

Of the 700 foreign companies in Colombia, only 40 are unionized, CUT says.

Stephen Coats, director of the U.S./Labor Education in the Americas Project, a worker rights group in Chicago, said the Colombian government had allowed serious labor violations to flourish in sectors such as the apparel and flower industries, where laborers say they are subjected to forced overtime and exposure to dangerous pesticides.

But Julia Hughes, senior vice president for the U.S. Assn. of Importers of Textiles & Apparel in Washington, said her members closely monitored their suppliers in Colombia for possible labor violations and had seen no evidence of widespread abuse.

“We have not heard there are problems or that they are in a somewhat worse situation than other countries,” she said.

The uncertainty over U.S. trade policy has been devastating for Colombian and Peruvian apparel manufacturers, which have already lost business from U.S. apparel importers, said Steven Lamar, senior vice president for the American Apparel & Footwear Assn. in Arlington, Va. Apparel imports from the Andean region have dropped 11% through September from the same period in 2005, he said.

In the past, Colombia and Peru have benefited from a program that gives them duty-free access for their goods. But the 2002 Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, which also includes Bolivia and Ecuador, is set to expire Dec. 31. Companies are pressing Congress to extend those preferences, at least until the trade bills pass.

Gary Ross, director of global sourcing for Liz Claiborne, said his company had sourced jeans, twill pants, blouses and jackets from the region for 15 years. But he said he had been forced to shift production to other countries because of the uncertainty over the extension of the duty-free program.

Ross said he had sought assurances from his manufacturers that they would deliver their goods at the duty-free prices, which means they would have to cut costs elsewhere if their trade preferences were not extended.

“They are working under tremendous pressure,” he said of his suppliers in those countries. “The uncertainty of their profitability is truly in jeopardy.”

*

chris.kraul@latimes.com

evelyn.iritani@latimes.com

Kraul reported from Bogota and Iritani from Los Angeles.