Posted on 11/16/2005 7:03:09 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[The following is an editorial appearing in the Herald on November 8, 2005, followed by a letter to the editor]
OUR OPINION: HOPES FOR IMPROVEMENT IN LATIN AMERICA DEALT A SETBACK
To judge from conventional wisdom, President Bush's trip to Latin America was a flop. Mr. Bush failed to gain ground on a free-trade agreement, and he was greeted by riots in Mar del Plata, Argentina, while U.S.-bashing President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela basked in the limelight of popular adulation. In this case, however, conventional wisdom is dead wrong.
The trip may not have been a great victory for Mr. Bush and the United States, but make no mistake -- the big losers at the Summit of the Americas were the people in Latin America who aspire to a better future. They have the most to gain from progress on free trade, and their leaders once again let them down.
Negotiate a better plan
Let's take it step by step, beginning with the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. If the current rules of international trade are stacked in favor of the industrialized countries -- as advocates from developing countries have been saying for decades -- then it's time to change the rules. The FTAA offers a blueprint to accomplish that goal. Don't like the blueprint? Fine -- then roll up your sleeves and negotiate a better plan.
That's the way to make progress. Mexico and some 27 other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean are ready to take that route. Mr. Chávez's appeal to ''bury'' the FTAA may appeal to populists and the usual gang of anti-American sloganeers, but it is neither a program nor even a competing vision of the future. The shame of it is that, with his country's growing oil wealth, and with Argentina and a lukewarm Brazil at his side, Mr. Chávez and those who rail against globalization have a lot of leverage to exert in forging a regional trade pact that is more to their liking.
Warm, cordial host
But that, apparently, is too hard. It's easier to chant slogans, burn effigies of the U.S. president, make vague appeals to uphold ''humanist'' ideals, stage a riot and then go home empty-handed. This is not so much a setback for the United States as it is for a region starved for jobs and economic improvement. Surely anyone looking to make international investment, the source of jobs and economic well-being, will get the message that, insofar as globalization is concerned, Latin America is not ready for the 21st century.
Perhaps the biggest winner, if there was one, was President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil. He remains skeptical over free trade, but he's not ready to write it off. He was a warm and cordial host to Mr. Bush on a stopover in Brazil. Given the riots in Argentina, Mr. da Silva's own doubts over free trade look more reasonable and moderate. His willingness to negotiate the tough issues may yet allow the FTAA to become a reality, with the ultimate victory going to the people of Latin America.
Re the Nov. 8 editorial Winners and Losers at Americas Summit: In the wake of the Summit of the Americas and with the upcoming World Trade Organization's Doha Round, trade liberalization will continue to be the focus among governments of the region. The summit was a success for free trade, demonstrating that hemispheric leaders are committed to creating the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
The editorial failed to recognize the tremendous achievement of the 29 nations that stood with President Bush to reaffirm their commitment to a hemisphere-wide trading bloc.
Four of the five noncommittal nations -- Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay -- included the caveat ''not at this time'' for the FTAA until the outcome of the Doha Round of multilateral talks on global trade is clearer.
The summit served to adjust the lofty expectations that the agreement must include all 34 democratic nations in the hemisphere. So long as Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez, a Castro ally, remains in power, the FTAA will be at least one country shy of full integration. Chávez was determined to bury the FTAA; instead, he strengthened the resolve of the 29 nations. There were 29 winners on the side of President Bush and five losers aligned with Chávez. That's not close.
What should happen now? There is momentum, led by Mexico's President Vicente Fox, to move ahead with an FTAA of the willing, which would generate a combined gross domestic product of $14.5 trillion vs the $2.2 trillion GDP of the five nations on the sidelines.
A revised FTAA community would be a formidable trading power, rivaling the European Union, and would be great news for Miami's campaign to house the headquarters.
The 29-nation commitment to the FTAA is real because it is right. A prosperous trading community is needed to attack poverty while establishing economic, social and political stability and strengthening liberty.
The 29 leaders sent a clear message that one man's politics cannot delay or destroy the economic progress and future of an entire hemisphere. Their strong stand represents unity and victory, not division and defeat.
JORGE L. ARRIZURIETA, president,
Florida FTAA, Inc. Miami
I thought I'd give the hornet's nest a good whack, seeing that it's a slow day.
Yeah, when FTAA is rammed through, we can have bigger bonfires than what they have in Paris!!!
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
~Karl Marx, "On the Question of Free Trade" - January 9, 1848
And how are you today, my Marx-quoting comrade?
Like your foot?
Any examples where free trade hastened the social revolution? Where free trade ushered in a Communist government?
I thought it was supposed to happen after NAFTA. Then after CAFTA. Now we have to wait until after FTAA? Karl Marx called that moving the goalposts.
The CFR is probably waiting for the WTO ban on vitamin supplements to kick in.
Batista increased trade relations with the United States and attracted significant American investment.
And why did this hasten the social revolution?
Unfortunately, the poor were too stupid to adopt a capitalistic system that wasn't as corrupt as what Batista imposed on 'em. Instead, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and have suffered under marxism ever since. They would've been much better off implementing protectionist trade policies that would've permitted their smaller Mom and Pop companies to grow and develop a larger middle class. More like what Japan and South Korea did.
I get it now.
America is like Cuba.
Bush is like Batista.
Castro is like Pat Buchanan.
Who's like Michael Corleone?
And to think you got all that from an old quote from Marx.
No, no, no, no, no...
you got it all bass-ackwards.
Castro wasn't even in the movie.
Let's try it again:
America is still America and always will be.
Mexico is like Cuba.
Vicente Fox is like Batista.
Papa Bush is Vito Corleone
Dubya is Sonny, Jeb is Michael and Neil is Fredo.
Karl Rove is Tom Hagen
Dick Cheney is Clemenza,
Paul Wolfowitz is Hyman Roth and Jack Kemp is Bruno Tattaglia...
Can you follow that? or do you need to go to Blockbuster to rent the video?
Who's Luca Brasi? Rumsfeld?
I've got the DVD. So who is Buchanan again?
So, Batista's increased trade with America caused Cuba, which had the highest standard of living in the region, IIRC, to revolt because the trade and investment made the rich richer and the poor poorer?
Or did it make the rich richer while the poor remained the same?
He was the Customs official at Ellis Island who made sure young Vito entered this country legally.
So, Batista's increased trade with America caused Cuba, which had the highest standard of living in the region, IIRC, to revolt because the trade and investment made the rich richer and the poor poorer?
Or did it make the rich richer while the poor remained the same?
As long as their basic needs are satisfied, peons can remain content with their low status for centuries. So the trade arranged by Batista must've somehow lowered their already squalid conditions.
Hmmmm....did he also raise the tariff on Genco Olive Oil, to keep American olive oil producers in business?
So the trade arranged by Batista must've somehow lowered their already squalid conditions.
I hadn't heard that before. So the Bush trade deals are going to lower American's standards of living? Can you show that NAFTA had the same effect? Or is it only the new trade agreements that are bad for America?
.jpg)
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.