Posted on 07/29/2005 6:48:42 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Government and business leaders in Guatemala applauded the U.S. House of Representatives for its approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) early Thursday, saying it will bring more jobs and foreign investment to the region. However, environmental and farmer organizations say the treaty will cause greater unemployment and more migration to the U.S.
CAFTA will remove most tariffs from goods traded between the U.S., five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. It is expected to take force as early as January 1, 2006.
The news brought mixed reactions in Guatemala, one of the six countries included in the trade pact with the United States.
Guatemalan congressman Mariano Rayo called the House's approval of CAFTA a victory for the country.
Mr. Rayo said CAFTA opens up great opportunities for employment and investment in Guatemala.
But he warns Guatemala must prepare itself to compete for this investment with other CAFTA countries.
The Guatemalan congress has committed to passing a series of laws designed to mitigate the treaty's negative effects on some sectors.
However, CAFTA opponents say these laws aren't enough. Miguel Angel Sandoval, of the anti-CAFTA group, Mesa Global, called the treaty a disaster for Central America.
It was a poorly negotiated treaty, says Mr. Sandoval, that doesn't represent the region's needs.
He called on the government to increase spending for development and assist small farmers in order to avoid a social and political crisis in Guatemala when CAFTA takes effect.
Quoting:
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided TWO-THIRDS of the Senators present concur;..."
What exactly is the difference between a "Trade Agreement" and a "Treaty"?
Webster's Dictionary defines Treaty as "a written agreement between nations"; while Agreement is defined as "1. concord; harmony, 2. contract; bargain."
If a "Treaty" is then and "Agreement" and CAFTA is an "Agreement", then the Senate by law should be required to have 2/3 of the senators present in order to pass CAFTA. This is the most blatant abuse of power by trying to theoretically skirt the intentional meaning of the constitution vis a vis changing a few words to push their agenda through. Strictly looking at the manner in which the "Trade Agreement" was passed, it is unconstitutional.
A BARGAIN is pretty much what corporate america got.
Anyone else agree/disagree?
Guatemala is happy because we are all going to be at their level soon.
We can only do that to ourselves.
CAFTA is unConstitutional and far more than about free trade.
It's managed trade, and not free market. I consider it betrayal and will have nothing to do with those who have put it forward.
I don't see myself voting republican again, at least not for anyone connected to this administration in any way.
Of course I'd never vote democrat, so I'll just be staying home.
But that means no more contributions, no more volunteering and no encouragement to others to vote for the pubs.
When you add in the North American Community crap, they all appear to be traitors, not just idiots.
All trade must be managed by statutory mechanism. They are not going to come take us away because CAFTA passed...
Stay home, it is just another vote for the beast in 08'.
Voting matters little to me (I live in the Masshole) but I do it out of unrequited faith.
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.