Help Preserve Jobs and National Security & Independence:Defeat the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement

The New American ^

[Coleus]

UPDATE, July 19, 2006. The House is expected to vote on the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (FTA) very soon.   The Senate has already approved this trade pact by 60-34 in June. This could be another CAFTA-type cliff hanger in the House, so please contact your representative immediately via phone, fax, or email, in strong opposition to the U.S.-Oman FTA. Phone is preferable due to the shortness of time and the bigger impact. 

Help Preserve Jobs and National Security & Independence: Defeat the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement

What's it all mean?

We have a golden opportunity to derail the NAFTA/CAFTA series of "free trade" agreements that are producing massive job losses for Americans and eroding national security and independence.

The U.S.-Oman FTA (Free Trade Agreement) was approved by the Senate with a vote of 60-34. The vote on this agreement is expected to be much closer in the House.

In light of the winning margin of just two votes on last year's CAFTA bill, and election-year jitters over controversial votes, the U.S.-Oman deal could be defeated in the House.

NOTE: A vote by the full House is expected in July, so you have to contact your representative now! (Please!)

Reasons for Opposing the U.S.-Oman FTA:

• The U.S.-Oman FTA threatens American jobs. For example, AMTAC (American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition) states that the agreement includes a ridiculously large tariff preference level (TPL) of 50 million square meters of textiles annually for 10 years, which will mean that Chinese yarns and fabrics will be shipped to Oman, cut and sewn into garments and then exported duty-free to the U.S.
• The U.S.-Oman FTA threatens national security. As reported on the Lou Dobbs Tonight show of June 28, "Under the Oman free trade agreement, foreign port operators would have a right, an absolute trade agreement right, to establish operations, to acquire, to operate, to run port facilities within the U.S." Under the "Cross Border Trade in Services" chapter of the U.S.-Oman FTA, a Dubai Ports World-type enterprise could acquire a company in Oman, and then operate U.S. ports through that company.
• The U.S.-Oman FTA threatens our national independence. Just as a European-wide free trade agreement has led to the loss of sovereignty of European nations to the European Union, and just as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area) is now being converted into a sovereignty-destroying North American Union through the creation last year of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, the U.S.-Oman FTA is designed to help bring about a Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA), which would be another sovereignty-destroying, supranational organization to which the U.S. would belong.

Recommended Action Plan:

1. Contact your representative in-person, or by phone, fax, or email before the House reconvenes July 10 and demand a NO vote on the U.S.-Oman FTA based on the reasons above.
   
2. Click here to see whether your rep voted yes on the CAFTA bill last year, which should be a good indicator of whether he is likely to vote yes on the U.S.-Oman FTA this year.

   Dear Representative, 

   Please vote NO on the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement!
   
   My reasons are:
   
   •The U.S.-Oman FTA threatens American jobs. For example, the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC) states that the agreement includes a ridiculously large tariff preference level (TPL) of 50 million square meters of textiles annually for 10 years, which will mean that Chinese yarns and fabrics will be shipped to Oman, cut and sewn into garments and then exported to the U.S. duty free. 
   
   •The U.S.-Oman FTA threatens national security. As reported on the Lou Dobbs Tonight show of June 28, “Under the Oman free trade agreement, foreign port operators would have a right, an absolute trade agreement right, to establish operations, to acquire, to operate, to run port facilities within the U.S.” Under the “Cross Border Trade in Services” chapter of the U.S.-Oman FTA, a Dubai Ports World-type enterprise could acquire a company in Oman, and then operate U.S. ports through that company.
   
   •The U.S.-Oman FTA threatens our national independence. Just as a European-wide free trade agreement has led to the loss of sovereignty of European nations to the supranational European Union, and just as the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) is now being converted into a sovereignty-destroying North American Union through the creation last year of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, the U.S.-Oman FTA is explicitly designed to help bring about a Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA), which would be another sovereignty-destroying, supranational organization to which the U.S. would belong.

[phoenix0468]

That was probably the funniest pic of all. It's an excellent lampoon of some pretty "out there" group.

[1rudeboy]

You use textiles to make garments. Generally, the garment industry is sensitive to imports, whereas the textile industry is in favor of opening export markets.

[1rudeboy]

I should add that the textile industry is not immune to job losses, but those generally come from modernizing equipment.

[phoenix0468]

Your correct, my apologies. Well then, dog gone, there you have it, it will most likely affect the garment industies.

[hedgetrimmer]

None of the arguments are winners, which is why the legislation always passes

This statement is incomplete.

[hedgetrimmer]

The USTR is not responsible for port security. The Coast Guard is. Therefore I would offer that their 'excellent synopsis' is lacking the facts.

[Coleus]

House Approves U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement
AP (via Yahoo!) - July 20, 2006
Excerpts: The House on Thursday joined the Senate in approving a free trade agreement with Oman.... The 221-205 vote gives congressional approval to the trade treaty.... [T]he agreement is another gain for the Bush administration in its drive to establish a Middle East free trade area by 2013.

[hedgetrimmer]

“The free trade agreement with Oman is another major step forward in implementing President Bush’s initiative to create a Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) by 2013, building on our existing agreements with Israel, Jordan, Moroc-co, and Bahrain,” US Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab said.

[hedgetrimmer]

This is why the "free traders" are happy.

“In addition, Oman will provide substantial market access across its entire services regime, provide a secure, predictable legal framework for the US inves-tors operating in Oman

It gives transnationalists Foreign Direct Access so they can use slave labor for manufacturing and their investments are 'protected'. Never mind that these agreements advantage foreign producers over domestic producers, thats the 'incentive' for them to sign on. Each and every one of these agreements betrays American citizens.

[hedgetrimmer]

Here's something interesting.

In the Oman FTA, the chapter on cross border services specifically defines specialty air services means any non-transportation air services, such as aerial fire-fighting, sightseeing, spraying, surveying, mapping, photography, parachute jumping, glider towing, and helicopter-lift for logging and construction, and other airborne agricultural, industrial, and inspection services.

Are there forests in Oman that need logging? Or are the Omanis going to be flying helicopters around OUR forests, construction sites, airborn agriculture GOSH THEY DON'T MEAN CROPDUSTERS, DO THEY? Why do you ask? /sarc

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Oman_FTA/Final_Text/asset_upload_file987_8839.pdf

[1rudeboy]

That's funny. A number of weeks ago you claimed that the UN is in charge of port security.

[hedgetrimmer]

I'm sorry, I was just repeating what you said.

[1rudeboy]

What? Where?

[Dog Gone]

The garment industry is basically already gone from this country. The jobs were always lousy jobs. Nobody ever went to school to become someone who makes mens' underwear.

If garments can be produced in other countries by workers making 50 cents a day, we can't compete with that. The protectionists would like to ban or impose huge tariffs on imported garments to make domestic production of garments economically viable. They don't mind that it would make clothes cost five times what it does today.

They want to protect those crappy jobs, no matter what.

[hedgetrimmer]

Nobody ever went to school to become someone who makes mens' underwear.

Yes you're right. Let's limit everyones economic opportunities by advantaging those in other countries. Doesn't matter if its your neighbors job, get rid of it! Its embarrassing that someone in America might be a sewer or a factory worker, those jobs are so 19th century. Better they learn how to clean hotels so when the G8 holds their meetings here, the rooms are presentable.

[1rudeboy]

Seeing that hedgetrimmer failed to provide a link for her #31, and seeing that it might be yanked for originating at the LAT, I thought I'd provide it here. Also, here is a link to the author's bio. I provide it for the laughs, please understand.

One must admit that The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time has a certain ring to it, in light of Dog Gone's comment that certain folks wrap things up in a neat conspiracy theory and pretend to be rightwing.

[Dog Gone]

Let's limit everyones economic opportunities by advantaging those in other countries.

We're apparently not limiting anyone's economic opportunity given the unemployment rate. Shouldn't unemployment be at least 20% given all the free trade agreements we've entered into?

You protectionists are such pessimists. You believe we have to protect crappy jobs because people are incapable of finding better ways to be productive.

You've been proven wrong for over 20 years, but you're incapable of seeing it.

[1rudeboy]

Oops, I forgot to ping to my #37.

[1rudeboy]

Here's a nice photo of Ms. Antonia Juhasz speaking at a rally of True Conservatives^®.