Posted on 06/18/2005 9:44:13 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
WASHINGTON -- Europe's top trade official yesterday said Congress' approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement would "send a very positive signal to the rest of the world."
"A lot of people outside of America are banking on this going through. We want to see it happen," Peter Mandelson, the EU's trade commissioner, said at a joint press conference with U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman.
Mr. Mandelson is in Washington to discuss trade and economic issues before a summit between the United States and the 25-nation European Union next week.
The two trade officials discussed ongoing World Trade Organization talks, a dispute focusing on rival aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus, as well as broader economic issues confronting governments on both sides of the Atlantic.
The CAFTA statement followed a press conference touching on the broader set of topics, and Mr. Mandelson did not elaborate.
But his comment indicates how important the pact with six Latin American nations has become to the broader Bush administration trade agenda.
"If CAFTA goes down to defeat, it is going to cast a chilling shadow over America's trade agenda and our place in the global economy," said Dan Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian Washington think tank that supports the pact.
"CAFTA has huge symbolic importance beyond its economic impact. The rest of the world understands that," he said.
Opponents, though, see CAFTA as simply bad trade policy. Democrats, especially, want more stringent labor standards negotiated into the pact.
"Sadly, the Bush administration ignored virtually all Democrats when it negotiated this CAFTA. Not surprisingly, virtually no Democrats support this CAFTA," Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, said last week.
CAFTA would establish rules easing trade and investment among the United States, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
The pact would have little impact on the overall U.S. economy, but would have an effect on some domestic sugar producers and textile manufacturers, coupled with broad opposition from organized labor.
Congress is expected to vote on the deal this or next month. Lawmakers vote yes or no; they cannot amend trade agreements, and a simple majority prevails.
A setback on CAFTA probably would undermine ongoing negotiations with other countries, especially Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Panama -- nations in the region that would face congressional opposition on similar grounds as the CAFTA countries unless the administration were to take a different approach.
The Free Trade Area of the Americas, with 34 nations in the hemisphere, already is stalled and U.S. efforts to build a series of blocs to pressure Brazil, Argentina and other reluctant countries would be stopped.
The administration and its supporters have argued that failure to approve CAFTA would harm ongoing WTO talks, which are focused on reducing agriculture subsidies and policies that harm poor countries.
Mr. Portman yesterday acknowledged that WTO talks had "lagged," and called for a renewed effort by U.S., EU and other world leaders to reinvigorate the talks.
They're banking on U.S. citizens not remembering our forefathers admonision to beware of foreign entanglements.
This is SO wrong!
You and your best buddy, Charlie Rangel, have some sort of ax to grind.
PING
Mmh. I'm waiting for the first "tariffs protect jobs" post to this thread. I predict that it will hit at around the same time as someone suggests that all service jobs involve burger flipping.
I was supporting CAFTA. Now I'll have to reconsider now that the EU supports it.
Kind of funny how the EU supports CAFTA and the US supports entry of Turkey into the EU. Almost makes me think there's some new world order conspiracy going on.
Those seem to be the working definitions among a particular mindset at this forum.
government intervention in a market = "free trade"
Strange that EU Socialist types are for CAFTA, while US liberal Socialist types are against...
Hmm.
reducing or eliminating trade barriers = government intervention
While I'm not into conspiracies, the mere fact that the EUros approve makes me wonder.
A european who understands trade supports it. Nobody has ever said that 100% of europeans are idiots, although I imagine 99% of them have never heard of CAFTA.
to go = to return
Here is how the test vote went:
Voting Record for U.S. Senate Finance Committee’s “mock” markup on CAFTA-DR on June 14, 2005:
Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. No
Max Baucus, D-Mont. No
Jim Bunning, R-Ky. Yes
Kent Conrad, D-N.D. No
Mike Crapo, R-Idaho No
Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Yes
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa Yes
Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah Yes
James M. Jeffords, I-Vt. No
John F. Kerry, D- Mass. No
Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. Yes
Blanche L. Lincoln, D-Ark. Yes
Trent Lott, R-Miss. Yes
John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va. No
Rick Santorum, R- Pa. Yes
Charles E. Schumer, N.Y. No
Gordon Smith, R- Ore. Yes
Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine No
Craig Thomas, R- Wyo. Yes
Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Yes
Unless of course, someone's point here is that the EU is our friend in trade...
Government to government deals are what is shilled as 'free trade'. The corporate lobbyists and foreign countries can make changes but our elected Reps can't.
They are our friend in trade to the extent that they prefer trade agreements as opposed to trade wars. Free trade agreements prevent disputes from escalating far beyond the initial dispute, and except for those here who have a mindset that any trade at all is bad, that makes sense.
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.