that would be most unwise...
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.
My way is to mine the border, seize a 10 mile deep exclusion zone on the other side, and shoot on sight.
That should take care of the overrun and drained part of your objection.
As far as the Marxists having firm control over Latin America, that's just fine by me if they want it. The only thing they have to share, after the oligarchs are massacred, is poverty. As long as they keep it at home, who gives a sh*t?
Bump! That brings me to the role of U.S. assistance. The U.S. does have a role to play in promoting prosperity, security, and political freedom throughout the hemisphere, one we share with every other country. But that aid must be formulated in the recognition that the responsibility for promoting these benefits lies with the individual countries and societies, and that all the aid in the world cannot substitute for their indifference. Given that understanding, any assistance we provide should be aimed at promoting the private sector and strengthening the institutions of civil society, without which there can be no stable democracy or economic progress. ***
Bump!
Look-I am a prime beneficiary of globalization. I am 53 years old, classically educated, skilled in symbol manipulation and a purveyor of a nearly pure information service which resists internationalization. I speak fluent French, enjoy travelling, and I do like all the things you mention.
All that, however, does not justify the pauperization and displacement of my American brothers and sisters who do not share my background and my good fortune.
However much I like cafe latte, I like America more.
And we want both, and we want it in that order.
Isn't solving the world's problems easy?
So ICBMs in Venezuela are OK with you?
You're pandering. Things evolve and change. Technology improves lives and progress creates the need for change. Demanding things stay the same, where no one has to be creative or resourceful, won't cut it.
That's your opinion. I'm glad you laid it out there for everyne to read.
that would be most unwise...
I agree with you about many Mexicans and Central Americans, but please don't paint all of Latin America with a broad brush. These are multiethnic societies with class/racial stratification (in layman's terms, there is no single "Latino" race or culture).
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.