In a nutshell, reprinted here, is a solid analysis in today's Wall Street Journal of the current political fate of FTA/TLC for Peru and Colombia. This is an excellent snapshot of the perils of denouncing sustainable commercial growth. Free trade, a proven tool in democracy's quiver to lift the poor out of stubborn, dependenicia enshrining poverty, is held hostage to the pervasive demands of the large labor unions which claim to control the "new" Democrats infusing the U.S. Congress today.

These "new" democrats, celebrated  last week by every rogue regime and global dictator, claim to be "new" populists as the "new" media reminds us that this "new breeze" of populists will tame the old "evil empire." These uneducated ,albeit self proclaimed enlightened, avatars of political fortunes are feting a return to statism and deal making for their state-union politburos and not the competitive actors badly needed. Never mind that the dream of state-run labor unions in lock step with expanding statism has not once successfully fed or housed anyone much at all except with the most modest of random successes, never sustainable and always deteriorating. Just survey Cuba's "worker's paradise" for a primary example of such an endgame...on a state mandated $98 or so per person, per year under slave-like conditions.

We remind that while these "new" breezes are blowing and billowing, instilling "new democracy" under "new" union-populist mandates, the reality of statism under authoritarian governments is as old as the hills. And has always been found failing. Populism is still defined in dictionaries as deriving from the 1891-1904 U.S. Populist political agenda, as it was defined almost 100 years ago and has not been altered since. The Populist agenda is defined as advocating free coinage, public ownership of all utilities ( oil, gas, water, etc), an income tax , and state controls to elevate labor unions and agricultural price controls. As a precursor to its replacement, populism was a softer Marxism.

Populism today-somehow ostensibly meaning anti-globalization ( whatever that is) has become  meaningless, no matter its romantic agrarian roots. We know today that overarching centralized authoritarian governments stifle liberty, stifle economies, fear competition and transparency, abhor free speech, stifle education and training, and encourage self-enriching corruption by state kleptocrats, which we add....is simply another name for populism's offspring: state Marxism. Will the real populists stand up for what the really are today? Notable in the rush to embrace centralized authoritarianism by the "new Democrats" is a glaring gap in their agenda... they have forgotten the value of British common law and American contract law- aka rule of law- in their rush to expand statism.

Rule of law and contracts you see are no longer necessary when the state controls all transactions for the paradise of worker's. Rule of law is replaced by the arbitrary state politburo and is no longer needed - or even supported in any meaningful way-in the "new" state run paradise. Trade, commerce, even-handed application of laws and even rule of law are but road kill, not much more than collateral damage, sacrificed to install "new democracy" by these "new" populists who are old fashioned Marxist-union restrictionist Luddites, true puppets of their overarching statist regimes.

Instead of destroying Ecuador's chances to build a sustainable economic future, its leaders, such as they are, must stop their impossibly self-serving, naive gamesmanship that somehow their mythical Marxist state will expand their nation's capacity to grow and deliver meaningful quality of life for their citizens. This shallow- and quite lazy- statism is a failure today and will fail again tomorrow. Ecuador's chance for real survival is ending precisely because it has no rule of law and is increasingly known for its repugnant state kleptocracy....corruption so massive that it is almost unthinkable.

Ecuador can and must stand with Chile, Mexico, Canada, Peru and Columbia on the side of winning- not losing. No one will do this for them or force responsible maturity on Ecuadoreans. Democracy- real democracy- demands free will and choices can still be made before the curtain rings down on what little is left of freedom's promise in Ecuador. No political quick fix or Chavez-backed constitutional referenda, as currently underway, will magically appear to restore growth and responsible futures,. It is instead a fundamental obligation of Ecuadoreans to stop making the best the enemy of the good. This requires a certain maturity per person and an end to the childish, shallow insistence that the lazy, vapid state-controlled dependencia be replaced with fulsome opportunities for all Ecuadoreans.

For all that the "new Democrats" and "new populists" promise economic expansion, not once has Marxism stood the test of time except to corrode quality of life, expand poverty, and increase misery. We continue to urge all our neo-Marxist friends to hasten to live inside a living relic of their worker's paradise: Cuba.

And please, we ask....do not return until you are restored to your senses with some adult reality checks in place. We do warn that playing the TV show Survivor in Castro's communist paradise will require mind-altering survival skills and a willing subservience to the all-pervasive state, coupled with a blind eye to the thousands who languish in Castro's penal gulags - suffering slow deaths for their moral  principles- with no chance of seeing the light of day. If this be populism and neo Marxism, it is not a "new" game show for the TV viewing impaired intelligencia. There are no prizes in the real world of reality based living for those struggling under repressive regimes. If Ecuador is to glean a chance for its own future, it must act responsibly, swiftly, and not childishly to enshrine a

capacity for growth, under anticorruption structural rule of law. Subservience of the self-absorbed and self enriching few under the guise of helping the toiling masses in a corrupt state kleptocracy is not "new" and remains one of the oldest and most deceptive propaganda games in town. It is a "new" breeze that blows most foul that fools and deceives.

---

The Wall Street Journal

Democrats and Trade
November 15, 2006; Page A18

Triumphant Democrats are talking up their new moderation, and we're about to get an early test of their sincerity: Are they willing to support the kind of trade opening with very poor countries that Bill Clinton supported? Or will they take orders from the AFL-CIO?

At issue this week are a bilateral free-trade pact already signed with Peru, and an amendment to extend a key provision of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) that Mr. Clinton and Republicans passed in a bipartisan spirit in 2000. The trade bills will be a particular test for Charlie Rangel, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who professes to care deeply about the world's poor. Here's his chance to prove it.

The African provision allows sub-Saharan Africa to source fabric for its apparel industry from any country in the world and then sell the garments in the U.S. duty-free. This "third country provision" has made garment assembly in Africa competitive and boosted sub-Saharan appeal as a destination for capital from the apparel industry.

AGOA has a 15-year life but the "third country" provision is set to expire in 2007. If Africa is forced to once again buy only U.S.-made fabric to maintain its U.S. duty-free status, its apparel industry will vanish. Clothing makers will pack up and move, taking something like 150,000 jobs with them. The biggest winner would probably be China as garment makers relocated to Asia.

GOP Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas has crafted a bill to extend the third-country provision through September 2008 and provide new investment incentives for U.S. companies in the region. Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, also gets a small but important third-country fabric provision. Mr. Rangel was one of those who supported a U.S. invasion of Haiti in 1994 in the name of helping its poor citizens; free trade is a lot easier.

The case for ratifying the U.S.-Peru trade pact is just as obvious. Peru already enjoys broad duty-free access to the U.S. under the Andean Trade Preferences act. This deal would preserve that access but also open Peruvian markets to U.S. exporters and expand choice for Peruvian consumers. Under the deal, 80% of U.S. industrial and textile products, and more than two-thirds of U.S. farm exports, would enter Peru duty free immediately. Most other barriers would be gone within 15 years.

According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, farm exports to Peru could increase by $705 million a year. U.S. producers of machinery, plastics, cereals and mineral fuels, as well as wheat, cotton and coarse grains all expect strong export growth if it passes. On the other hand, if the U.S. walks away from Peru, the leadership in Lima will likely look to the EU and its Latin American neighbors for trade agreements, putting U.S. producers at a disadvantage.

Big Labor is pushing Democrats to block a vote and demand that the pact be renegotiated to include more labor protections. But Peru's labor laws are nearly identical to those in Chile, with which the U.S. already has a free-trade agreement. Peru protects the right to collectively bargain and its laws are consistent with International Labor Organization standards. The AFL-CIO's real game here is to force provisions on Lima that will increase the clout of unions in Peru. Never mind that these are issues for Peruvians to decide, not to be imposed by Big Labor gringos from Washington.

Ratifying the pact would also help Peru resist the influence of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, who is pushing his own regional trade bloc to exclude the U.S. and isolate South America. Later this month the U.S. is expected to sign a free trade pact with Colombia, another country that wants closer relations with the U.S. and is resisting Venezuela's cold embrace. A number of Democrats were only too happy to praise Mr. Chávez last year in return for receiving some of his discount oil, but Mr. Rangel denounced his recent anti-American rant at the U.N. Killing the Peru and Colombian deals would harm American interests and hand Mr. Chávez a strategic gift.

The AFL-CIO is claiming its new "economic populism" helped Democrats win last week, though there's little polling evidence to show it. In any case, it is a strange populism that advertises its power by trampling on the economic aspirations of the world's poorest citizens. Is this what Democratic control of Congress is going to stand for?