Prime Minister Harper and I mark the new Canada-Colombia Free-Trade Agreement

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and I were recently in Colombia. We visited youth programs in a marginalized urban neighbourhood, met with business leaders, and talked with Colombians about the new Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement which went into effect on August 15, 2011.

Before you start to wonder about this, let me clarify: PM Harper and I did not actually visit Colombia together, but oddly enough, we were there at the same time and did many of the same things.

PM Harper visited a youth project in Soacha, the sprawling neighbourhoods south of Bogota on Wednesday August 10, and I visited youth projects there on Tuesday and Thursday, August 9 and 11. I visited a lunch program for about 200 children and youth operated by the Teusaquillo Mennonite Church and a school run by Colombian Mennonite Brethren churches, both MCC-supported projects.

While PM Harper spoke with Colombian business leaders in a luxury hotel in Bogota, I visited a small rice production and processing cooperative in a remote village in the Choco region, and talked with the coordinator of a micro-credit program for street-vendors in Bogota, both programs operated by MCC partners.

While PM Harper marked the inauguration of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Colombian President Santos in the National Palace, I talked with community and church leaders about its expected impacts at the community-level.

Free Trade Agreements: Good for Everyone?

Canada already has FTAs with five Latin American countries and is currently developing additional ones in eight more. The Canadian government believes that trade agreements generate economic growth, and that this growth will benefit the poor, strengthen democracies, and  foster respect for human rights. However, historical evidence does not support this.

Trade and investment have played a significant role in the progress of many countries towards greater economic prosperity and equality, but not through rapid liberalization of markets, particularly between countries of unequal industrialization. These agreements more often cause increased economic instability, loss of livelihoods among vulnerable populations, and undermine the capacity of national economic sectors in the less economically-developed country.

The strongest evidence against FTAs is the North America Free Trade Agreement  (NAFTA – the FTA between Canada, the USA, and Mexico) that has been in effect since 1994, with particularly devastating impacts on small-scale farmers and wage labourers in Mexico, and the related increases in out-migration, organized crime, human rights violations, and social instability.

The United States Congress is currently debating the passage of a FTA with Colombia. The Washington DC Office of MCC is asking constituents to oppose this because of the expected negative impacts on small-scale farmers, indigenous and Black community rights, and respect for human rights.

A Global Precedent: Monitoring Human Rights Impacts of the FTA

The Canada-Colombia FTA was drafted in November 2008, however parliamentary and public objections over Colombia’s dubious human-rights record prevented it from being passed until now.

For over 50 years, Colombia has been the site of a complex armed conflict between the government, paramilitary forces, guerrilla movements and the drug cartels. As a result, Colombia has the largest internally displaced population in the world (about 5 million people) according to the UNHCR and a very poor human rights record.

Because of these concerns, the Canada-Colombia FTA was finally passed with a clause that both countries must track the agreement’s effects on human rights, and annually report the results to their legislatures. The first reports are due in May 2012.

Both countries will monitor whether vulnerable populations affected by the agreement experience gains or losses in their right to such things as food, livelihoods, and a clean environment.

The lack of a baseline assessment of human rights conditions or the inclusion of specific measures or methodologies of how the monitoring will be done are serious gaps in the agreement, to the point where there are concerns that the reports may be merely an exercise in government public relations.

Monitoring the human rights effects of a trade agreement is a global precedent. Canadians, Colombians, and the world will be watching to see if inclusion of human rights monitoring in a trade agreement can ensure that states are accountable not only to follow international trade rules, but also to respect internationally-recognized human rights, including peoples’ economic, social and cultural rights.

Maybe a year from now, PM Harper and I will have the opportunity to visit Colombia again and hopefully, we will observe that the Canada-Colombia FTA has furthered respect for human rights in Colombia, rather than merely advanced the power of an economic elite and increased the suffering of the majority, like most FTAs.

References:

Colombian Context – article in Project Ploughshares Monitor:

http://www.ploughshares.ca/sites/default/files/2011summer.pdf

Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade:

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/colombia-colombie/facts-fiches-hr-dh.aspx?lang=en&view=d

MCC Washington – Action against US-Colombia FTA:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5764/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1168385