If these things were to happen then yes, that would damage our sovereignty. But we can stop all that by using this simple tool.
Posted on 01/11/2006 11:16:53 PM PST by 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
I suspect the so-called conservatives who are against freer trade are economically ignorant.
Right, free trade will make your vitamins illegal and will make all citizens of the world into American citizens, automatically. Time for your blue pill.
Please explain why each group objects and then we'll discuss how much they agree.
We conservatives who are not in favor of multi-lateral "trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA, see these treaties as very real threats to our national sovreignty. We see them as not so much about trade per se, but rather control over the people and resources of the signatories. Furthermore, such trading blocs become socialist mulit-national governments.
As for the communist dictators in Central and South America who have voiced their objections, I think they object primarily because it tends to strip power from the leaders themselves. If fully implimented, these "trade" agreements would start dictating terms to those leaders who now enjoy almost complete power.
How do they threaten our sovereignty?
I think they object primarily because it tends to strip power from the leaders themselves.
Hmmmm....they make it harder for foreign leaders to impose tariffs (how many Communist dictators are there in Central and South America?) and they make it harder for American leaders to impose tariffs. Now why is reducing governmental power to tax anti-Conservative?
If fully implimented, these "trade" agreements would start dictating terms to those leaders who now enjoy almost complete power.
I suspect the leaders with complete power, like Chavez, are not interested in trade agreements with the US.
Not exactly, sir, I see them as maintaining that the topic is about trade, and it is us who are telling them it is not about trade.
Folks, conservatives are not against trade, and would welcome any amount of fair trade, provided it is with one country at a time, and not designed to morph into something else.
The big multi-national "trade" agreements are just not about trade in the long run, but are designed from the start to be the foundation of a regional government. All the mechanisms are there to regulate trade and much more; something that used to be called "immigration" but will come to be called "translocation of human resources" or some such. New laws will be written affecting our own Congressional actions, such as; our internal farm policy, and our pharmicutical industry, our lumber, minimg, and oil industries, labor agreements, food safety and suppliment availability, our health care providers, and the insurance industry, shipping, imports, exports, transportation, the use of our own land, the type of cars we drive, our long-term energy policy, and of course, our banking industry.
And you thought our sovereignty was safe!
Our borders will be essentially non-existent, as migration of workers will be even more commonplace than it is now, our U.S. dollars will be replaced with "Ameros", If you have a job, it will probably be in the service sector, as most manufacturing jobs will have moved out of the country. Our Congress will be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the international trade boards who will oversee our internal and foreign policies, and will dictate the terms under which we will be forced to live.
Oh, and did I mention that our "partners" in Central and South America will each have an equal voice with us in determining who sits on those boards?
Toddsterpatriot, would you not agree with me that these items at least in part, define our Sovreignty?
Oh, and I know many of our macho brethern will boast that they will "fight" rather than give up their guns. Just be forewarned: The right to keep and bear arms will be legislated out of existence long before the troops come down your street. Therefore, they will be killing a "criminal" who has dared to stand in defiance of the State.
If these things were to happen then yes, that would damage our sovereignty. But we can stop all that by using this simple tool.
That is precisely the wrong attitude to take.
So, brass tacks, loss of sovereignty is when someone tells us to do something we don't want to do, but we do it because we have too?
Hmmmmm....who is a better recruit, someone like you who constantly agrees with Communists or someone like me who disagrees with Communists? Someone like you who wants more government or someone who wants less government, like me? Don't hurt that little brain by thinking too hard about this one.
How much does the bureaucracy cost? How much has our trade expanded since NAFTA? And how would eliminating sugar tariffs and farm subsidies increase government again?
"I'm millions richer in just a few short years."
--General Jiang Zemin
Everyone knows a soldier's pay is never enough, and our communist system of government could not maintain our economy. But close friends in the US showed us a revolutionary new system called "free trade". In short order, the elite in the People's Liberation Army became the wealthiest around.
"free trade" the system that builds wealth for communist dictators.
The WTO is an incipient global government only in your fevered imagination.
So the hundreds of billions in taxpayer farm subsidies over the last 10 years is okay with you? Forcing US citizens to pay $2.5 billion more every year for sugar is okay with you? Tell me again how you favor smaller government.
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.