Full Text of the CAFTA Agreement (Available here)

It's tougher to be a terrorist because of intelligence cooperation, law-enforcement cooperation, homeland-security cooperation. That is a successful example of integration with the trade. Despite the imperfections, shall we say, in the WTO [World Trade Organization] system, that's an impressive global arrangement where countries voluntarily cede some of their sovereignty because they themselves benefit from participating in a world-based system.

-- Richard N. Haass, president, Council on Foreign Relations; author, The Opportunity

May 31, 2005

** Say, when did we all voluntarily cede our sovereignty to the WTO? The "free traders" keep telling us this isn't so.

Say, when did we all voluntarily cede our sovereignty to the WTO? The "free traders" keep telling us this isn't so.

When Americans weren't paying attention to what our government was up too.

Have you had a chance to read farther down the thread? A fellow protectionist points-out that our labor laws will now be approved by the ILO. So which is it? Free trade creates sweatshops in Latin America, or free trade imposes global workers' rights laws on us?

If some yob named Richard Haass says it, it must be true.

For the last time, it's not "Free Trader's" it's "Free Traitor's" Got it! Jeez!

Oh what the heck, time to post something "subversive," seeing that I'm a "traitor."

Trade agreements fully preserve a state’s right to regulate.

Nothing in the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or other Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) prevents the United States or any state and local government from enacting, modifying, or fully enforcing domestic laws protecting consumers, health, safety, or the environment.
The agreements ensure that state and local agencies continue to have an absolute right to set environmental, health, and safety standards at the levels they consider appropriate.
The agreements simply provide that the legitimate standards that governments impose must be non-discriminatory and transparent, and not be used as disguised barriers to trade.

Trade agreements do not automatically preempt or invalidate state and local laws.

WTO, NAFTA and other trade agreements do not in any way preempt or invalidate federal, state, or local laws that may be inconsistent with those agreements. This is because, while the United States has committed itself to adhere to the rules set out in the WTO and the NAFTA agreements, those rules do not automatically override any domestic laws.

Trade panels cannot overturn or change U.S federal, state or local laws.

WTO, NAFTA (including NAFTA Chapter 11 investor-state) and FTA dispute settlement panels have no authority to change U.S. law or to require the United States or any state or local government to change its laws or decisions.
Only the federal or state governments can change a federal or state law.
If, ultimately, the United States cannot reach an agreed settlement with the country that brings a dispute settlement claim, that country may withdraw trade benefits of equivalent effect. However, under trade agreement rules, the United States retains complete sovereignty in its decision of how to respond to any panel decision against it.

Source

Do you have a source for that Portman quote? Sorry for having to ask.

Trade agreements fully preserve a state’s right to regulate.

"That's their spin," retorts Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. "We clearly believe that [GATS] opens the door for future challenges to state sovereignty."

CAFTA has nothing really to do with sugar. Sugar is just a convenient boogeyman for the mainstream media to use to make the people angry and support CAFTA out of anger. If you read form USTR Robert Zoellicks speech of May 16 you will see that the purpose of CAFTA is to merge the the Central American countries with the North American Community, and ultimately the whole hemisphere. If our sellout leaders accomplish this, what form of government do you think the US will take? Certainly the Constitution will no longer apply because the "traders" are implenting through treaty and foreign aid a type of "civil society" where a corporatist fascism reigns and the voice of the people becomes the voice of the NGO.

This corporatist fascism is apparent in the lack of enforcement of US borders, the governmental elites( and it galls me that in America we have come to have an elite "class" in our government contrary to the purposes of our founders)find it convenient to ignore their duty to protect the country from invasion, and to uphold laws that they passed that deal with immigration and the permission to work in this country.

I agree with respect to our borders and the shameful performance of the government in that area. However, I disagree about the sugar and the purpose of CAFTA in general. I'm all for free trade and taking some of the power away from the environmentalist nuts and the "workers rights" socialist (which is what I believe CAFTA does).

More hearsay evidence. So you found another opinon. Big whup.

Interesting discussion bump!

I thought this was a trade agreement, didn't realize it was a way to reduce others political clout or ability to negotiate ones future earnings. (Sarcasm!)

You see that is eaxctly the point. This thing is being touted as again, a wealth creator, but in your own words seeks to undermine another's political point of view by "rule of law"

bfl

Open the CAFTA document and go to page 20 to read what it says about 'sugar'.

Article 3.15: Sugar Compensation Mechanism
1. In any year, the United States may, at its option, apply a mechanism that results in compensation to a Party’s exporters of sugar goods in lieu of according duty-free treatment to some or all of the duty-free quantity of sugar goods established for that Party in the United States’

Schedule to Annex 3.3. Such compensation shall be equivalent to the estimated economic rents that the Party’s exporters would have obtained on exports to the United States of any such amounts of sugar goods and shall be provided within 30 days after this option is exercised. The United States shall provide the Party with 90 days prior notice of its intent to exercise this option and, upon request, will enter into consultations with the Party regarding the application of the mechanism.

2. For purposes of this Article, sugar good means a good provided for in the tariff items listed in subparagraph 3(c) of Annex 1 to the U.S. Schedule to Annex 3.3.

Further search to read what it says about 'sugar'.

1806.10
A change to subheading 1806.10 from any other heading, provided that such products of 1806.10 containing 90% or more by dry weight of sugar do not contain non-originating
sugar of chapter 17 and that products of 1806.10 containing less than 90% by dry weight of sugar do not contain more than 35% by weight of non-originating sugar of chapter 17.

Annex 4.1-12 DRAFT
Subject to Legal Review for Accuracy, Clarity, and Consistency January 28, 2004 subheading except from heading 22.03 through 22.09;
A change to sugar syrups of subheading 2106.90 from any other chapter, except from chapter 17;

Increased sugar market access for Central America and the Dominican Republic in the first year under the CAFTA-DR amounts to only a small portion of U.S. sugar production. The increased access is equal to little more than one day’s production in the United States.
In the first year, increased sugar market access for Central America and the Dominican Republic under the CAFTA-DR will amount to about 1.2 percent of current U.S. sugar consumption, growing very slowly over 15 years to about 1.7 percent of current consumption. Total U.S. sugar imports have declined by about one-third since the mid-1990s. Sugar imports under the CAFTA-DR would not come close to returning total U.S. sugar imports to those levels.
U.S. over-quota tariffs on sugar will not change under the CAFTA-DR. The U.S. over-quota tariff is prohibitive at well over 100 percent, one of the highest tariffs in the U.S. tariff schedule.

Source: Office of the U.S. Trade Reprentative

DR-CAFTA will turn sugar into a dumped commodity on international markets. Unlike other major U.S. commodity programs, the sugar program actually prevents dumping on the world market at below the cost of production. The sugar compensation mechanism in the DR-CAFTA allows the U.S. government to either pay DR-CAFTA countries in cash or sugar to compensate for blocked imports. This unsound provision quickly could turn the U.S. sugar program from a nondumping into a dumping program.

Another thread on CAFTA and sugar

CAFTA is a bad law written by a multinational group and an unelected, unconstitutional "trade minister" to advance the control of multinationals in the sugar market, not to protect individual rights as our legislators are directed by the US Constitution to do.

When the most-favored-nation and national treatment obligations start to come to life who will be on our side of the fence?(1) Just what International Corporation is going to stand up to the administrative tribunal or court of the respondent and shout "Protect America" from regional government?(2)

You seem to have on helluva lot of faith in the Secretary-General of the UN. I'm glad you do even after to Food for Oil fiasco because I don't. He has shown me that he is susceptible to the common greed for money. His objectivity, reliability, and sound judgment are in serious question, IMO.

"Article 10.19: Selection of Arbitrators
"(the) tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties.
2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section."

Since you appear to be a self appointed expert on this subject, please explain just what this means to me.(3)

"4. For purposes of Article 39 of the ICSID Convention and Article 7 of Schedule C to the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, and without prejudice to an objection to an
arbitrator on a ground other than nationality:"

You do realize that all decisions are final "other than Article 16.2.1(a)." don't you?(4)

"Subject to Legal Review for Accuracy, Clarity, and Consistency
January 28, 2004
6. If the matter concerns whether a Party is conforming to its obligations under Article 16.2.1(a), and the consulting Parties have failed to resolve the matter within 60 days of a request under paragraph 1, the complaining Party may request consultations under Article 20.4 (Consultations) or a meeting of the Commission under Article 20.5 (Commission – Good Offices, Conciliation, and Mediation) and, as provided in Chapter Twenty (Dispute Settlement),
thereafter have recourse to the other provisions of that Chapter. The Council may, as appropriate, provide information to the Commission on consultations held on the matter.
7. No Party may have recourse to dispute settlement under this Agreement for any matter arising under any provision of this Chapter other than Article 16.2.1(a)."

Is this a bit of favoritism towards Nicaragua?(5) I'm just asking because we also have low income families, small and midsize enterprises in my community.

"8 Sector:
Obligations Concerned: National Treatment (Article XX)
Description: Nicaragua reserves the right to accord benefits to financial institutions or public entities which supply financial services, wholly or majority owned by the State and which are established with a public interest purpose, including but not limited to agriculture production finance, housing credits for low income families, and credits for small and midsize enterprises."

I am keeping in mind that this entire document is "Subject to Legal Review for Accuracy, Clarity, and Consistency", so I do have reason to doubt that I am looking at the final draft. Correct?(5)Or will it be changed after the vote in Congress by the tribunal arbitrators?(7)

How is the United States affected by section
112(b)(5)(B) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) (19 USC 3721(b), section 204(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) (19 USC 3203(b)(3)(B)(ii)), or section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of the Carribean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA)and the section 204(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C.
3203(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV)) and why are they referenced here?(8)

I see a lot of protections for Costa Rico, Honduras, Guatemala, to Salvadorian nationals born in El Salvador or enterprises organized under Salvadorian law where I don't see the same concerns for the United States. Any ideas why?(8)

It seems that we are more concerned with other countries economic staus than we are our own. Why?(10)

Please answer all 10 questions in your reply. I realize that you will probably have to do some research but I'm willing to wait for your properly researched answers. Time isn't of the essence here.

>>over 15 years to about 1.7 percent of current consumption.<<

Where does this time period and quantity estimate come from? Do you have the tonnage data?

You see that is eaxctly the point. This thing is being touted as again, a wealth creator, but in your own words seeks to undermine another's political point of view by "rule of law"

It merely corrects a great injustice. We've been subject to the whims of the liberals and they've been using their own "rule of law" to do things like protect snails or name some guy's ranch a "wetland". Sorry my friend, some points of view just aren't legitimate. There's a right and a wrong and this helps put us on the right again.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.