CAFTA-DR hits constitutional snags

Ag Weekly ^ | jamuary 11 , 2006 | Cathy Roemer

[hedgetrimmer]

The Central American Free Trade Agreement-Dominican Republic is struggling to get on its feet after six Central American countries, including the Dominican Republic, failed to meet a Jan. 1 preliminary start-up date.

All CAFTA countries have ratified the agreement with the exception of Costa Rica, El Salvador being the first in December 2004 and Nicaragua the most recent in September 2005.

"All countries recognized the Jan.1 date was an ambitious goal and that they might not have completed their implementation process by that time," said Stephen Norton, spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative office.

At issue are the "technical changes" the nations must make in customs procedures and regulations regarding intellectual property rights, telecommunications and procurement.

Portman said countries will come on line under a "rolling process" when they have completed the implementation process to USTR satisfaction, including a presidential proclamation from each nation.

CAFTA-DR’s troubles have invigorated hope among opponents that the trade agreement could be derailed.

But Burke Stansbury, executive director for the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, a U.S. based group opposing CAFTA-DR, said it’s unlikely the agreement will fall apart but"we are not giving up."

"From day one the Bush administration has been trying to ram CAFTA down people’s throats, with little substantive debate and despite voices of tremendous opposition," he said. "In Costa Rica they have failed, and in other countries it took repression and dirty tactics to ratify CAFTA."

Stansbury likened CAFTA-DR to an "investors’ and corporate" rights agreement for the United States and U.S. corporations.

"U.S. corporations want strict fines and penalties in place before they set up their businesses there," he said. "The USTR is demanding each nation to come up with a whole list of reforms that align with CAFTA."

That amounts to constitutional or domestic law rewrites for each country involved, said Tom Rickert, co-director of the Quioxte Center, a Maryland based group opposing CAFTA-DR.

"The problems associated with implementing CAFTA demonstrates what we’ve been saying all along: This agreement goes beyond trade in requiring dramatic changes in domestic laws that grant new rights to transnational corporations at the expense of working people," he said.

Ricker also said CAFTA was being used as a mechanism to "re-energize the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement."

The FTAA intends to bring every country in the Western Hemisphere under one free-trade umbrella -- possibly to the point of a common currency, the Amero, similar to the European Union’s Euro.

Norton supported the idea of CAFTA-DR being a forerunner to FTAA when he said," Successful CAFTA-DR implementation is critical to the broader U.S. policy goals for the Americas of strengthening democratic governance, expanding economic opportunity, and investing in people."

Stansbury said, too, CAFTA-DR goes beyond other free-trade agreements in that it prohibits countries from discriminating against "trade in-services" or "basic social services being managed by a foreign country."

"It opens the way for foreign industry to manage services that have been traditionally managed by the state," he said.

When asked if that stipulation means a Central American national could become a local fire chief or police chief in the United States, Stansbury said, "It is possible."

CAFTA-DR funding

United States

The United States’ Trade Capacity Building policy gives financial aid to countries to align them with free trade agreements. USAID is another agency used to appropriate U.S. funds to bolster a nation's trade capabilities.

A partial listing of money being funneled into CAFTA countries include:

* Honduras -- $215 million

* Nicaragua -- $175 million

* Potential for similar amounts in 2006 for other CAFTA countries is provided by the Millennium Challenge Corporation appropriating U.S. funds -- Condoleeza Rice, chairman

* President’s FY2006 Budget Request: approximately $200 million for the region in development and capacity-building.

Inter American Development Bank (United States is a member) in a 2005-2009 loan pipeline for trade capacity building:

* Costa Rica -- $417 million

* El Salvador -- $375 million

* Dominican Republic -- $285 million

* Guatemala -- $281 million

* Honduras -- $142 million

* Nicaragua -- $103 million

World Bank (United States is a member)

* Over $1.14 billion in already approved loans in support of CAFTA’s reform agenda. Loans include financing for roads, ports, electricity, customs modernization, reductions in costs of doing business, rural development, strengthening governance and institutions.

Source: Office of the United States Trade Representative

[A. Pole]

Costa Rica, though, is holding out because of mounting opposition by trade unions, some farm groups and even some [...]

El Salvador can help. It has free market experts who know how to deal with pesky unions and nuns.

[Dog Gone]

What kind of remark was that?

I mean, back that up. Where do you get off saying that the the people in El Salvador who favor open trade kill nuns and union members?

Or are you all just hot air and BS? I really want to know.

[A. Pole]

Where do you get off saying that the the people in El Salvador who favor open trade kill nuns and union members?

"KILL"?!! Did you say "kill"?! I said "deal" not "kill"! See my tagline.

[Dog Gone]

Okay, "deal". Whatever you intended to imply with that statement, which the rest of us damn well know.

Now, provide the backup for your assertion that free traders know how to "deal" with them.

And don't be cute.

[A. Pole]

And don't be cute.

Why not? There is a nice Polish proverb: "Jaki kon jest to kazdy widzi" (How the horse looks, everybody can see for himself).

Just enter the following on Google:
"free market" "El Salvador" union nuns

You will get 21,700 returns. Some showing how the horse looks like, some supporting your position.

[Dog Gone]

I see, the free traders want to "deal" with nuns.

Your position is really, uh, interesting. I'm going to round up a few of my corporate buddies to go "deal" with some nuns next week.

Or maybe we'll rejoin reality before then.

[A. Pole]

Or maybe we'll rejoin reality before then.

By all means, do it please.

[Dog Gone]

Not your reality. Thanks anyway.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has free market experts who know how to deal with pesky unions and nuns.

Don't you get it? Capitalism kills nuns and union members. Communism doesn't kill anybody. Get it?

I think he misses living under Communism. Makes you wonder why he moved to America instead of Cuba or Vietnam or North Korea. Makes you wonder why he doesn't move now? Before the capitalists kill him.

[lewislynn]

"U.S. corporations want strict fines and penalties in place before they set up their businesses there,"

-----

Over $1.14 billion in already approved loans in support of CAFTA’s reform agenda. Loans include financing for roads, ports, electricity, customs modernization, reductions in costs of doing business, rural development, strengthening governance and institutions.

Everyone knows businesses need US taxpayer funded infrastructure before they set up shop in a foreign country...Why don't we build them a nice sports stadium while we're at it...South Americans love Baseball and Soccer.

[Designer]

Allow me to be the first to congratulate you on taking the same side as these openly Communist organizations. Bravo!!

You fellows are wrong on two counts:

1.The conservatives are not on the "far right wing" as the dopes in the MSM would have you believe.

2.The communists object to trade agreements for different reasons than do patriots. Do not confuse the coincidental appearance of "agreement" between leftists and conservatives with fundamental differences.

When you have sufficiently digested these two facts, you are then ready to examine the rest of the issue, namely; why is it, exactly, are the conservatives against those so-called "trade" agreements?

[1rudeboy]

If you are willing to stipulate (as am I) that certain conservatives object to trade agreements for different reasons than do communists, then an examination of why some of those conservatives rely upon "communist" (for lack of a better term) sources to make their arguments is well in-bounds, since at best it indicates intellectual laziness. Moreover, not all such behavior is "coincidental." Some posters, after being informed that their source is "less than persuasive" (again, for lack of a better term), acknowledge the objection and find other more reputable sources. Others, unfortunately, ignore these concerns and continue to rely upon sources such as Public Citizen, E.P.I., Common Dreams, etc., that only serve to weaken their own arguments.

Once a pattern is established, the "coincidence" excuse fails . . . and in my opinion, repeated reliance on such sources creates a permissible inference that the person citing to them is a Leftist as well.

[hedgetrimmer]

One more fact that is missing, is that the "free traders" embrace communists. Their policies have allowd China MFN, and they are making the communist oppressors in many countries very very wealthy with their phony "free trade" policies.

So who takes the same side as the openly communist? Clearly the "free traders".

[hedgetrimmer]

If you are willing to stipulate (as am I) that certain conservatives "free traders" object to trade agreements sovereignty then an examination of why some of those conservatives "free traders" rely upon "communist" Guilt By Association, name calling,inaccuracies, coordination and volume propagandist techniques to make their arguments is well in-bounds, since at best it indicates intellectual laziness the mental bankruptcy of their position. Moreover, not all such behavior is "coincidental." Some posters"free traders",after being informed that their source name calling is "less than persuasive" (again, for lack of a better term), never acknowledge the objection and find other more reputable sources debates. Others, unfortunately, ignore these concerns and continue to rely upon sources such as Public Citizen, E.P.I., Common Dreams, etc., misinformation and verbal abuse that only serve to weaken their own arguments.

[1rudeboy]

One more fact that is missing, is that the "free traders" embrace communists. Their policies have allowd China MFN, and they are making the communist oppressors in many countries very very wealthy with their phony "free trade" policies.

So who takes the same side as the openly communist? Clearly the "free traders".

[hedgetrimmer]

"free trader" WTO president MIKE MOORE waxes poetic about enriching the Chinese communist party.

"The benefits for China are clear. Opening its markets to foreign trade and investment will make it richer."

He explains how WTO membership will make the Chinese communists more powerful.

"It will also give Beijing a seat at the WTO table and a stake in the world trading system"

Just what the world needs, Beijing dictating our trade. Yes, the "free traders" gladly give the communist dictators in China power over global economy.

[hedgetrimmer]

Let me begin by saying how pleased I am to be in China at such an important point in the negotiation of China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Years from now we will look upon this time as a watershed in the evolution of the global economic system.

There is a third major reason for China's participation in the multilateral system. Only inside the system can China take part in writing the trade rules of the 21st century.

--WTO Director-General, Renato Ruggiero

Yes, it is the first time in the history of the world that the free American people have been forced into the position of deliberately enriching a communist government, giving them more power over the people they control, and giving them power and authority in the global marketplace a communist government should have. Good one "free traders" (NOT).

And what good does it do a free people, if China's communist leaders can write the trade rules for us? NONE.

You "free traders" need to look into your own back yard. The communist sympathisers are in YOUR ranks.

[Mase]

The conservatives are not on the "far right wing" as the dopes in the MSM would have you believe.

I've always considered Pat Buchanan and his minions to be on the far right fringe of the political spectrum. What these folks miss is that free trade takes place between individuals and not governments unless of course, government has complete control of the economy. When people think of trade as between governments they also think of trade as having winners and losers. Hence, the misunderstanding and hand-wringing associated with trade deficits.

The next step for these folks is to claim that, within a market economy that creates winners and losers, there will undoubtedly be conflict between the varying interests of social classes as well as between nations. If you follow these threads you will witness numerous claims that the working class is suffering greatly and that the middle class is being decimated. They can never offer proof of this from any reputable sources. Instead, they rely on left wing websites to support their dubious claims. This activity, IMO, is very leftist in nature.

Free trade is simply based on freedom. The freedom of any citizen of one country to trade with a citizen from another. If both parties didn't benefit, they wouldn't trade.

The alternative to free trade is protectionism. Conservatives who support protectionist measures such as tariffs and quotas, are arguing for allowing the government to take more of our money, increased prices for American citizens and for additional governmental control of our economy. Criticizing the freedom to trade while advocating for more government control of our money and economy strikes me as very socialistic in nature.

The thought that the state can appropriately determine what industry is in need of protection, what quotas or tariffs should apply, and for how long, is laughable. Protectionists must believe that the government is responsible, capable and reliable. To me, this sounds very familiar to those on the left.

Conservatives have, in the past, been in favor of political isolationism. they have never been, like Pat Buchanan, in favor of economic isolationism. Far right conservatives believe that through protectionist policies, we can protect jobs and create domestic strength and prosperity. History however, has taught us otherwise.

[dljordan]

" God forbid we privatize tollway operation! It's socialism!"

They're trying to pull a slick one here in Colorado, it's called the Super-Slab. Using an old mining law a consortium of Americans scalawags and Arab investors want to use Imminent Domain to grab a 200 mile long by 12 mile wide (they're trying for 20) stretch of property. They want to evict people whose families homesteaded the property back in the 1800's. Using the government to grab land is socialism. The point on this little land grab is a man named Ray Wells, who I'm surprised is still walking around.

[1rudeboy]

Small points, but a government grabbing land to build a road is not socialism. Nor is having a private developer build it in exchange for a lease that permits toll-collecting. I know nothing of your situation in Colorado. Almost everything hinges on whether the road is actually necessary, I think.