I'm back, baby!

At least temporarily. I submitted the following letter in response to this editorial in the WSJ:

I understand the desire to pass the free trade agreement with Colombia, but to argue that one country (Colombia) “deserves...trade preferences” while others (its Andean neighbors) do not (Pelosi’s Trade Priorities, Oct 1) is the wrong way to go about it. Using trade as a political tool to influence foreign nations has only modest (if that) impact. Nations such as Cuba have lived without access to U.S. markets for 50 years. Who has paid the bulk of the price for that policy? Cuban citizens. Because they have been cut of from the gains from trading with the U.S., they have also been cut off from a higher standard of living. The people of Andean nations do not “deserve” a less harsh treatment simply because of the actions of their political leaders. The ability to freely trade with Americans is not something we should be bestowing upon those nations we feel deserve it. It is something we should allow unmolested not only because it is in the economic interests of the citizens of the U.S. and whoever their trading partners might be but also because it shows that we respect the “unalienable” right of liberty even when the leaders of those foreign nations do not.

Matt Hutchison
Chicago