Posted on 08/05/2005 9:38:29 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
Most of us are aware that Congress has passed and President Bush has signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) into law. CAFTA is the latest in a series of international trade agreements to which the United States has committed itself.
Sold to Congress as promoting "free trade," international agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and now CAFTA are actually huge compromises of American sovereignty and independence for the benefit of wealthy international corporations.
(Excerpt) Read more at evervigilant.net ...
I may learn Spanish to that I can be thankful when I get a job making 35 cents a hour degrading myself. God life is good. Viva los jobas.
Loss of U.S. independence to the supranational CAFTA Free Trade Commission. “The Parties hereby establish the Free Trade Commission, comprising cabinet-level representatives of the Parties…. The Commission shall: (a) supervise the implementation of this Agreement; (b) oversee the further elaboration of this Agreement; (c) seek to resolve disputes that may arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement; (d) supervise the work of all committees and working groups established under this Agreement; and (e) consider any other matter that may affect the operation of this Aacgreement.” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 19)
Loss of U.S. independence to World Bank and United Nations tribunals under CAFTA.
“Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim … (a) under the ICSID Convention [World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)] and the ICSID Rules of Procedures for Arbitration Proceedings, provided that both the respondent and the Party of the claimant are parties to the ICSID Convention; (b) under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, provided that either the respondent or the Party of the claimant is a party to the ICSID Convention; or (c) under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules [United Nations Commission on International Trade Law arbitration rules].” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 10) “A Party shall be deemed to be in compliance … if it is a party to and is in compliance with the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards….” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 20)
Loss of independence of U.S. federal, state, and local governments to regulate service professions and businesses to CAFTA’s “Cross-Border Trade in Services” provisions. “Cross-Border Trade in Services … applies to measures adopted or maintained by a Party affecting cross-border trade in services by service suppliers of another Party. Such measures include measures affecting: (a) the production, distribution, marketing, sale, and delivery of a service; (b) the purchase or use of, or payment for, a service; (c) the access to and use of distribution, transport, or telecommunications networks and services in connection with the supply of a service; (d) the presence in its territory of a service supplier of another Party; and (e) the provision of a bond or other form of financial security as a condition for the supply of a service…. For purposes of this Chapter, “measures adopted or maintained by a Party” means measures adopted or maintained by: (a) central, regional, or local governments and authorities; and (b) non governmental bodies in the exercise of powers delegated by central, regional, or local governments or authorities…. National Treatment 1. Each Party shall accord to service suppliers of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own service suppliers. 2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that regional level of government to service suppliers of the Party of which it forms a part…. Most-Favored-Nation Treatment Each Party shall accord to service suppliers of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to service suppliers of any other Party or a non-Party…. Local Presence No Party may require a service supplier of another Party to establish or maintain a representative office or any form of enterprise, or to be resident, in its territory as a condition for the cross-border supply of a service.” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 11)
"Politics is about who gets what."
For people who live in depressed countries and have no jobs, 35 cents an hour can look very attractive. Perhaps you believe those people are better off starving, and the shirts manufactured will not be the high quality American product a $7/hour pimply faced doped out kid with piercings or a $20/hour union worker would make on Monday morning. That is the American way...even if I've been a complete screw-up all my life, the world owes me a job...because I'm an American.
CAFTA is a good thing. Trade between the USA and Central America will benefit us all with increased wealth. I have no doubt that we can compete with the workers of the world, because throughout our history America has taken in the workers of the world, made them better people, and given them the opportunity to pursue happiness. It is our freedoms that made us the world's only economic and military superpower. CAFTA won't change America but it may change Central America by expanding the wealth of the people and giving them the power to affect and enforce political change.
Isn't it nice that the American people get to vote on such issues.
When did America owe the world over it's own interests??
Gee Whiz!!! This sounds really sinister.
(a) under the ICSID Convention [World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)] and the ICSID Rules of Procedures for Arbitration Proceedings, provided that both the respondent and the Party of the claimant are parties to the ICSID Convention;
The United States ratified the ICSID Convention in 1966. It has been ratified by 132 countries. ICSID's headquarters are located in Washington DC.
(b) under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, provided that either the respondent or the Party of the claimant is a party to the ICSID Convention; or (c) under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules [United Nations Commission on International Trade Law arbitration rules].
We have live under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules since 1986.
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law
The United States participated actively at all stages of the preparation of the 1980 Convention. Professor E. Allan Farnsworth of the Columbia Law School represented the United States in the UNCITRAL Working Group deliberations during the 1970's. Professor Farnsworth and Professor John O. Honnold of the University of Pennsylvania Law School represented the United States at the 1980 diplomatic conference in Vienna. On the advice of the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Private International Law and with the support of the American Bar Association, the United States signed the convention on August 31, 1981. President Reagan then submitted the convention text to the Senate for its consent to ratification on September 21, 1983. The Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations held hearings in 1984 and 1986 and reported favorably to the full Senate. On October 10, 1986 the Senate gave its consent by a unanimous roll call vote. The United States deposited its instrument of ratification with the U.N. Secretary-General on December 11, 1986 and thereby helped to bring the convention into force.if it is a party to and is in compliance with the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards….” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 20)
Our courts have been operating under the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards since 1970 when Chapter 2 was added to The Federal Arbitration Act -Title 9 of the US Code.
You are now better informed if not wiser.
Thanks, but I already knew there were fools in the US who don't give a damn about loss of soverignty.
Your rant has changed nothing.
Yes. Was I not clear enough when I wrote "CAFTA is a good thing."?
I just received a copy of a letter sent to President Bush from the U.S. Business and Industry Council...
The USBIC is a tiny isolationist/protectionist group, and a detractor of Dubya since he was elected. You can read their anti-bush anti-trade rants here. The USBIC has allied itself with the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research against CAFTA.
Wanna read what Alan Tonelson, research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council wrote for the Washington Times?
It was one of the biggest mysteries of the presidential campaign and indeed modern American politics. Whether they favored Democratic nominee John Kerry or not, why didn't most voters turn sharply against the Iraq war launched by President Bush?
He goes on to insult the people who voted for Bush. He talks of Iraq war supporters as people with a "crude" understanding of the war because of their"brute logic"
You can read the rest of this swill here...Because Iraq matters - The Washington Times: Commentary - November 11, 2004
CAFTA, NAFTA, FTAA,all interlock with WTO and all have within them chapters that create international tribunals that will supersede the rulings of state and federal courts, and legislatures. Just last December the governor of California vetoed a bill involving road building, because it violated NAFTA.
The juxtaposition of your 2 sentences is delightful. By your own logic their is no reason for Ahnold to veto the budget. The WTO designed tribunals supersede our laws. Why take the heat when he can simply let the World Bank or the UN, or insert conspiracy group, simply strike it down. But the simple answer is ...
NAFTA is now the law of the land. If a CA bill is in violation of United States law then there is good reason to veto it.
Could it be that Ahnold simply didn't like the rat passed legislation?
The WTO tribunal ruled Utah can't regulate Internet gambling
Yeah, and then it reversed itself.
California will probably lose the $500 million case to Canada, because we don't want to use MTBE anymore as a gasoline additive that contaminates ground water.
MTBE makes gasoline burn more efficiently and cleanly. In 1996 it became part of CA strategy to meet federal clean-air requirements. Then Grey Davis and the rat legislature decided the tree huggers of CA prefer dirty air over dirty water.
We've had American companies successfully sue Canada in the recent past. This is nothing new. NAFTA CAFTA or any other treaty can be revoked or refused by the USA at any time. We need only change our own laws to say the treaty is no longer effective. If we want to leave the WTO because we disagree with their rulings the only consequence is we will no longer have a viable forum to discuss trade disputes.
Call your Congressman. (Or woman).
My Congressman is lesbian & communist Tammy Baldwin...Like you she is vehemently against CAFTA.
I just ripped huge holes in your chicken-little NWO scenario and instead of disputing one detail you spew childish slander. I admire your debate tactics. They are in the classic Paleo-Con style. Good work!
Your rant has changed nothing.
It has shown all who read it, my acuity, acumen, and eloquence. Just as your post dramatically reveals your abilities and reflects the merits of your ideology. It was also a lot of fun. Thank you for your response.
Yeah ... what the hell is going on? And here I thought this was a representative democracy.
Representative democracy comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies—i.e., not necessarily according to their voters' wishes, but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances. Modern liberal democracies are important examples of representative democracy. In the United States this term is often synonymous with "republic."
I have said they are advantageous to the USA as well.
why would you feel that "international tribunals that will supersede the rulings of state and federal courts, and legislatures" is in the best interest of the citizens of the USA to keep them?
Perhaps if you re-read my post you will see I rejected the notion that the international tribunals supersede our laws. The are just treaties and they can be broken simply by changing our laws. We are bound to the contracts because we agreed to them. We can un-agree with them at any time.
When a business out side the USA has a grievance with our trade practices, or we have a problem with another country's trade practices, some entity must mediate. This is because it has been very difficult to negotiate treaties with other countries where only the interests of the USA held unqualified authority. In most trade the 2 parties must give up something to get something. With CAFTA and any other trade treaty it remains our option refuse the trade.
That has a social intelectual ring to it. I'll counter with Henry Cabot Lodge and William E. Borah.
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.