Posted on 01/03/2005 8:59:09 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick announced that the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force today. The U.S.-Australia FTA is the first FTA between the United States and a developed country since the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988. More than 99 percent of U.S. manufactured goods exports to Australia have immediately become duty free. Manufactured goods account for 93 percent of U.S. exports to Australia.
"As President Bush said when he signed the agreement, 'the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a milestone in the history of our alliance,'" said Ambassador Zoellick. "This is the most significant immediate cut in industrial tariffs ever achieved in a U.S. free trade agreement, and manufacturers are the big winners. I am also pleased that U.S. workers, businesses, farmers, and consumers will now begin to enjoy the wide-ranging benefits of this landmark agreement. This is a 21st Century, state-of-the-art agreement that reflects the modern globalized economy. By opening trade in goods and services; eliminating barriers in the agricultural sector, investment, and government procurement; and increasing protection for intellectual property; the agreement will strengthen U.S.-Australian economic ties and has the potential to increase trade between our countries by billions of dollars."
Australia is a large and growing trade and investment partner of the United States. Two-way annual goods and services trade is nearly $29 billion, a 53-percent increase since 1994. Australia purchases more goods from the United States than from any other country, and the United States enjoys a bilateral goods and services trade surplus of $9 billion.
Background:
Negotiations on the Australia-U.S. FTA began in March 2003, and President George W. Bush and Prime Minister John Howard have made it a priority for both countries to conclude the agreement. The negotiations were completed on February 8, 2004, and the agreement was signed by Ambassador Zoellick and Australian Minister Mark Vaile on May 18, 2004. President Bush signed the measure into law on August 3, 2004, after the U.S. Congress approved it a month earlier. Australia's Parliament approved implementing legislation in August 2004, and the Australian Government took further action to implement important intellectual property obligations in December 2004.
The FTA will open markets and streamline mutual access in intellectual property, services, government procurement, e-commerce, and investment. Australia is a key export market for important U.S. manufacturing sectors such as aircraft, autos and auto parts, machinery, computers and electronic products, chemicals, and wood and paper products. Each of the 50 U.S. states exports to Australia, and Australia is among the top 25 export destinations for 48 of the 50 states. The leading states exporting to Australia are Washington, California, Illinois, Texas, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
The United States is working to open markets globally in the Doha World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations; regionally through APEC and the Free Trade Area (FTAA) of the Americas negotiations; and bilaterally, via FTAs. The Bush Administration has completed FTAs with 12 countries -- Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Australia, Morocco, and Bahrain -- and negotiations are under way or about to begin with 12 more countries: Panama, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Thailand, the five nations of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), and soon the United Arab Emirates and Oman. New and pending FTA partners, taken together, would constitute America's third largest export market and the sixth largest economy in the world.
Here is the opening declaration:
the ILO was founded in the conviction that social justice is essential to universal and lasting peace;
Whereas economic growth is essential but not sufficient to ensure equity, social progress and the eradication of poverty, confirming the need for the ILO to promote strong social policies, justice and democratic institutions;
Now, the latest free trade agreement USA-Australia(remember everyone free trade is about lowering barriers to trade /sarcasm) with Australia, contains commitments by the USA to the socialist workers global body the ILO:
Under Chapter Eighteen, the Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and under the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
But this wasn't the first trade agreement that the US threw sovereignty away for, in order to placate the international socialists.
NAFTA has its own commitment to the ILO:
The Parties shall seek to establish cooperative arrangements with the ILO to enable the Council and Parties to draw on the expertise and experience of the ILO for purposes of implementing Article 24(1).
The USA Jordan free trade agreement:
The Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and their commitments under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up.
If one looked, one could probably find commitments to international labor law in all our free trade agreements. The fact that our congress is committing to international laws, that may not be in conformance to state laws means nothing to them. All Americans should be alarmed at the socialist language of these international treaties and should deny implementation of international treaties that promote socialist policies internally to the United States.
Doesn't seem like a big deal, Australias like the US, only they have summers during winter.
I'm glad our free trade agreement with Australia has gone into effect on Jan 1. Thanks for the news!
FYI
Won't this put domestic kangaroo meat packers out of business; Australia seem to have a big advantage there.
The problem is that the trade negotiations include promises to support UN organizations like the ILO and allow the UN to set our labor policies in our country without the knowledge of most American citizens.
Do you think the UN should be empowered by a "trade" agreement, knowing how corrupt and power hungry that internationalist organization is?
Well, if they drive fast enough they might make it...
Does this mean it will be easier to get access to Austrailian beers and coverage of the Austrailian-rules football/rugby/soccer/controlled-riot sporting events?
You can read it yourself
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/australia/ustrsummary.pdf
Then you can tell us.
You don't care that the ILO is a branch of the United Nations, and that our trade agreements are purposed to conform US laws to the United Nations?
Hooray for free trade, this is "good news"
So what?
Have you ever read a "free trade" agreement? Just curious.
I guess the Green party would support this treaty:
"Greens support sustainable development and social and economic justice across the globe."
social justice:
EC202 To achieve an equitable distribution of resources , wealth, opportunity and power which ensures access for all to the means of sustenance and of personal and social development.
Do you think the Global green party might have influenced the WTO into adopting the United Nations ILO in order to socially engineer the parties to the treaties by setting conditions underwhich the trading parties are allowed to negotiate?
Green Party Short term aims:
To introduce into the WTO a social clause, based on ILO standards,establishing minimum labour rights and conditions for participation in the multilateral trading system
"Free-Market Ping!"
What is the libertarian preferred way to conduct free trade?
(BTW...Im all in favor of free trade myself.)
That's a question requiring a fairly complicated answer. Let me see if I can shorten it down to its essence. MOST libertarians, I'm pretty sure, would say absolute free trade with no restrictions. Those calling themselves "anarcho-capitalists," such as those found on mises.org and lewrockwell.com for examplte, would certainly take such a position.
I am a libertarian nationalist, however, so MY position is that we should use access to our markets to break down barriers other nations impose against us. In other words, if France is "protecting" its farmers, we should deny them access to our markets at least to the exten they deny us access to theirs.
But other than to BREAK DOWN trade barriers, I oppose almost all restrictions on trade, which after all, are restrictions on liberty no less than any other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.