Just returned from a trip to Mexico; more thoughts on that shortly, hopefully. For the moment, I'll just refer you to Gateway Pundit's notes on Obama's view of trade: Cuba, good; Columbia, bad. Whatever the underlying motive, the operative rule seems to be that it's bad to trade with nations which are pro-US, and desperately need our markets opened to them, but good to trade with anti-US nations, no matter how bad their human rights record.

I'm amazed the "violence against union members" thing is being entertained by anyone as a reason not to trade with Columbia. Such a statistic would only be meaningful if the violence were coming directly from the government, as a human rights abuse. Nobody is alleging that, of course. It's a bit like saying you're not going to trade with some small nation because they have too many cases of malaria. And as it is, the murder rate of union members in Columbia is apparently BELOW that of the populace as a whole, anyway.

So what's the real reason?

I can think of three. For one, as I've mentioned, there are a number of Democrats who are sympathetic to FARC and/or Chavez, and would prefer to see Columbia as a left-wing dictatorship. Others, I suspect, simply reflexively oppose any helpful* policy enacted by the Bush administration -- having no positive political program of their own, they're reduced to mindless naysaying. And of course Unions are reflexively against trade, though that can't be a serious effect, with Columbia constituting a mere 1% of our international trade.

(* When Bush wants to do something stupid, like his prescription drug benefit or immigration policy, they tend to remain silent and uncritical.)