Posted on 11/16/2003 4:22:49 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
OUR OPINION: VISION OF A HEMISPHERIC FTAA IS A GOAL WORTH PURSUING
Let's be clear. The pursuit of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, which continues in earnest this week in Miami, is an eminently worthwhile effort. But everyone should keep this much in mind: So far, there is no FTAA agreement. The Miami meeting is one in a long series of discussions. No one, not even negotiators, now knows what an FTAA might be in final form, nor should they state categorically what it will mean or do. We simply don't know. We can discuss FTAA goals and the process. But an actual trade agreement is, optimistically, more than a year away.
World is shrinking
By creating the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the United States and our hemispheric neighbors have a historic opportunity to shape open markets for our collective benefit. The 34 trade ministers meeting this week in Miami can play a pivotal role in moving the process forward. They must focus on the prosperity that an integrated hemispheric market could ultimately bring to each nation and work constructively through the disagreements that naturally exist.
The reality is that the worldalready is globalizing. No one can turn back that tide. Nor should they want to. Our best hope is to prepare for the inevitable future -- and do so before our economies are pounded by other trading blocs and low-cost China.
We welcome discussion on how best to do so by all sides. Free speech is alive and well in Miami, and we should see it in many peaceful debates and demonstrations this week. It will include, for example, the participation for the first time of civil-society groups as a part of the official FTAA conference. The meeting also will be an opportunity for Miami to shine and remind visiting dignitaries of how good it would be for an FTAA headquarters to be located here, if there were to be an FTAA agreement -- even though site selection isn't a central focus of this week's agenda.
Ideally the FTAA could spur economic growth throughout the hemisphere. Industries and firms with strong competitive advantages would have ample opportunities to profit from access to the world's largest open marketplace: More than 800 million people in 34 countries, from Canada's Northwest Territories to Argentina's Patagonia.
Hard work ahead
The FTAA would offer poor countries the opportunity to prosper from exports and foreign investments. U.S. consumers would benefit from cheaper goods and new trade-related jobs. The FTAA could raise living standards throughout the region as well as improve health, labor and environmental protections.
To realize that vision, however, ministerial negotiators will have to work hard to reconcile some very tough issues. Brazil, for example, looks favorably on trade talks, but prefers first to form a South American trading bloc that could then negotiate more forcefully with the United States. We believe this means that Brazil would support an FTAA, but not for many years yet. If that happens, it would leave in question whether the FTAA is an idea whose time has come -- or still is years away from arriving.
In any case, letting go of protectionist policies, reconciling differences in policies and priorities, gaining consensus on rules and standards will require tough decisions for all the countries involved. As is the nature of every free-trade deal, there will be FTAA winners and losers. Ultimately, any FTAA agreement should ensure that long-term benefits will outweigh individual losses.
This week, negotiators should push closer to that goal. Perhaps the biggest hurdle would be agricultural subsidies. Brazil, South America's biggest economy, is pushing for the United States to lower farm subsidies and cut anti-dumping rules against below-cost imports. The United States eventually may have to phase out such supports, but how it does so is critical.
Some goals achievable
Nearly all governments protect agriculture in one form or another. More than 110 countries produce sugar, all with some government assistance, for example -- and very little of it is traded on the open market. For one region to try to resolve this alone would only create new market distortions and inequities. Thus, reducing farm subsidies should be thrashed out in the World Trade Organization, as U.S. negotiators argue.
Florida's citrus industry, which generates 90,000 jobs and a $9 billion economic impact for the state, also makes a compelling argument for anti-monopoly measures. Brazil's citrus industry, which is controlled by five big processors, is the low-cost producer. Together the two produce 85 percent of the world's orange juice. Without some protection, Florida citrus could be put out of business; and Brazilian producers could gain a worldwide monopoly. That would eliminate competition and thus harm consumers.
Trade ministers aren't likely to resolve these and other thorny issues this week, but they should focus on areas amenable to agreement, such as anti-corruption rules, and push the FTAA process forward. Otherwise, U.S. negotiators may turn to subregional trade deals to the detriment of those countries left out.
Not a cure-all
A successful, well-crafted FTAA deal would:
• Provide mechanisms to soften the blow for workers and industries that might be adversely affected.
• Promote modern, effective business practices and strengthen behaviors that spur long-term economic health: property rights, investor rights, health and labor standards, environmental protections and judicial systems that effectively enforce the rule of law.
• Discourage bureaucratic red tape that fosters corruption and prevents fair competition.
• Invite civil society to monitor progress.
• Not allow foreign-investor rights to inhibit national, state and provincial authorities from protecting human health and the environment.
Even if these ideas are achievable, it should be remembered that no trade agreement can be a cure-all for poverty and social ills. Each government would still have to craft the right policies and institutions to leverage the wealth created by commerce into healthy economic development.
Well, this begs the question.
Why is it "eminently worthwhile"?
It does not seem so to me.
Further integration with societies which do not share our heritage or our values, where oligarchs or communists reign over a vast ignorant proletariat living in the fourteenth century, seems like an eminently worthless and stupid idea.
Globalization could be ended in three months by the Congress of the United States acting on its own authority.
Why should that bother a protectionist? They want to pay higher prices.
False, false, false.
you can't reach proper conclusions from faulty premises.
It's worse than that.
Socialism in its pre-Zimbabwe stage requires a source of production to exploit.
In the case of a fabulously wealthy pre-socialist empire (like, say, England) the scam can go on for several generations.
In the case of turd world pestholes, it can only go on for a few years.
You, my friend, are the last best hope of a world rushing headlong toward socialism to serve as the outside source of capital.
Socialists, even very smart ones, are blind to the source of wealth.
They take wealth as a given (a preexisting condition which does not require any action to increase or maintain it). The socialist project only focuses on the exploitation of wealth. Since it produces none, it can only go on for as long as there is an external source of wealth to exploit.
For our time, what you refer to as "the American taxpayer" is the target source, all of the others having been already degraded or destroyed.
What I see is the U.S. being the big loser when it comes to these treaties, with NAFTA being an example of that.
Why is this your premise. You obviously deal in generalities.
Yes because their judicial system is so corrupt. Everyone has to bribe everyone to get anything done. No stability is possible so people like Chavez step in with promises of reform but with the goal of communism. Of course they'll be the elite with their foot on the neck of the people.
The alternative isn't working. Actually it is driving the problem stealthly into the fabric of our country. If we keep things up your way, before long we'll be over run and drained of our resources and the Marxists will have firm control over Latin America. That isn't a plan JN.
There's good globalization and bad globalization. We all agree that we hate countries that export disease, oil slick our beaches, and sneak across our borders.
Let's also agree that we like coffee from Latin America. Nigerian oil, the Beatles, and Chrome from Russia. We also like internationally managed telephone, postal, and other communication services. We want most international agreements because they provide for things like shipping protocols and criminal extradition. Even if those treaties are so boring that we never talk about them.
Nobody wants to end all globalization any more than we want to swear off our morning coffee.
BTW, anyone who disagrees with me is not allowed to use his Asian-made computer chips to post a rebuttal.
Property rights, ownership, the right to a fair trial and true judicial process, all those things give us freedom.
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.