Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Full Text of the CAFTA Agreement (Available here)
interaction.org ^ | 2002

Posted on 06/13/2005 6:45:01 PM PDT by B4Ranch

CAFTA Central American Free Trade Agreement

This is a 765 page document. If you would like to read it. Click here

CAFTA is not a simple trade agreement. CAFTA was negotiated behind our backs and it is based on a logic that favors profit over human rights and sustainability.

CAFTA gives us three big winners: the three agribusiness firms that control 82% of the world grain trade. Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill profits increased for ADM from $110M to $301M and Cargill’s from $468M to $827M. But since 1984 the real price of food has remained constant while the price farmers receive has fallen by 38%.

If implemented CAFTA would transform privileges for multinational company into rights that would have legal precedence over all secondary legislation in those countries.

Free trade can only be among EQUAL partners. U.S. subsidizes the big agribusiness plus distribution.

From Why We Say No to CAFTA from the Bloque Popular Centroamerico – (yes, from the Central American countries that we are told should benefit) that CAFTA would be the nail in the coffin of Central American Agriculture. Small Central American farmers will be forced out of business by the flood of cheap subsidized goods coming from the United States.

Investor rights or human right? Under CAFTA investments it will be left to the market. National investors treated the same as domestic; prohibits the use of performance requirements; limits the local government’s ability to impose regulations on foreign investors; allow foreign corporation to sue local governments; limit control of local and national governments control of public services such as water, education and other basic rights.

Presently the CAFTA Central American countries receive their main income from United States remittances. This enslaves the illegals here and the citizens in their home countries.

I have never read or studied anything in my life that has no redeeming qualities. It appears that a few multinational companies will starve or enslave 80% of the world’s population with this plan.

We must not endorse CAFTA.

We must secure our borders.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: borderxxi; bushdoctrine; cafta; caftaagreement; ftaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 06/13/2005 6:45:02 PM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

We must not endorse CAFTA.

We must secure our borders.
----
Says it all.


2 posted on 06/13/2005 6:51:15 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
"This is a 765 page document."

And I thought the European Union constitution was bad.

3 posted on 06/13/2005 6:53:42 PM PDT by SunnyD1182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
I think the link is here.
4 posted on 06/13/2005 6:55:07 PM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

You don't need a hundred pages of legal mumbojumbo for free trade. A very few lines that forbid certain mercantile trade laws is plenty.

How many pages is the CAFTA treaty? That gives you your answer.


5 posted on 06/13/2005 6:55:46 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Free trade is a good thing. Agreements are necessarily long. Worker rights enforcement in Central America is good for everyone.


6 posted on 06/13/2005 6:56:36 PM PDT by DuckFan4ever (Liberals lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

NAFTA was sold as the soltion to poverty in and illegal immigration from Messico.......CAFTA will be even more horrific to America than NAFTA.


7 posted on 06/13/2005 6:57:30 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

I'm behind CAFTA. I just wish they hadn't felt it necessary to make special protections for American sugar because the trade off wasn't worth it.


8 posted on 06/13/2005 7:03:25 PM PDT by Jaysun (No matter how hot she is, some man, somewhere, is tired of her sh*t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
NAFTA was sold as the soltion to poverty in and illegal immigration from Messico . . . . [sic]

Is that why the text of NAFTA mentions neither? /sarc

9 posted on 06/13/2005 7:04:54 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer


10 posted on 06/13/2005 7:10:05 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuckFan4ever
"Free trade is a good thing. Agreements are necessarily long. Worker rights enforcement in Central America is good for everyone."

Yeah, kind of like the "worker rights enforcement" that NAFTA provided for, say, Mexico, or what free trade provides for sweatshops in Asia. Workers rights, indeed!

11 posted on 06/13/2005 7:16:50 PM PDT by SunnyD1182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane; AZ_Cowboy

Here it is!


12 posted on 06/13/2005 7:21:11 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (I - L O V E - my attitude problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Everyone that supports human rights and sustainability over profits, please raise your right hand so that the representatives from Earth Justice and Public Citizen will be able to identify you.


13 posted on 06/13/2005 7:31:03 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker

How many pages is the CAFTA treaty? That gives you your answer.
-----
I am afraid the trusting American people are being had, big time -- with these so-called treaties, that are just coverups for massive, ego-centric, political agendas to unite the Americas....I will put cash on this one!


14 posted on 06/13/2005 7:50:03 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DuckFan4ever
Worker rights enforcement in Central America is good for everyoneM

CAFTA establishes the United Nations ILO to be the arbiter of all labor issues in CAFTA countries. Since the US will be a CAFTA country if this treaty is approved, then the ILO becomes the source of labor law in this country. If you are a patriotic American and believe that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then you cannot accept this treaty as law, and it must not be passed.

Even if you aren't a patriotic American, but a person of high ethical standards, you cannot allow the United Nations any more power, especially in our hemisphere. The United Nations is an incredibly corrupt organization, whose ministers come from socialist, communist and totalitarian dicatorship countries. If America is to remain a free country, our leadership cannot sell us out wholesale to the United Nations as it will do in this treaty and as it has done in past treaties.

CAFTA must be stopped.
15 posted on 06/13/2005 8:06:02 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
CAFTA has nothing really to do with sugar. Sugar is just a convenient boogeyman for the mainstream media to use to make the people angry and support CAFTA out of anger. If you read form USTR Robert Zoellicks speech of May 16 you will see that the purpose of CAFTA is to merge the the Central American countries with the North American Community, and ultimately the whole hemisphere. If our sellout leaders accomplish this, what form of government do you think the US will take? Certainly the Constitution will no longer apply because the "traders" are implenting through treaty and foreign aid a type of "civil society" where a corporatist fascism reigns and the voice of the people becomes the voice of the NGO.

This corporatist fascism is apparent in the lack of enforcement of US borders, the governmental elites( and it galls me that in America we have come to have an elite "class" in our government contrary to the purposes of our founders)find it convenient to ignore their duty to protect the country from invasion, and to uphold laws that they passed that deal with immigration and the permission to work in this country.
16 posted on 06/13/2005 8:13:33 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
sustainability over profits

I guess you'd better shut down the federal government then. It has been on track for sustainable development since Clinton signed the EO that created the Presidents council on sustainable development. The EPA, the USDA, the US treasury department, the US state department and the department of transportation are all on the "sustainable" bandwagon. In fact, sustainability is a criteria that the "working groups" created to implement the CAFTA agreements in Central America. You'll find "sustainability" endemic in the language of the "trade and aid" agreements our out of control government elites are pushing.
17 posted on 06/13/2005 8:18:27 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
We must not endorse CAFTA.

We must secure our borders.

----

Says it all.

Says it all.

18 posted on 06/13/2005 8:22:29 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Bookmarked.


19 posted on 06/13/2005 8:23:09 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; JesseJane
How to sell a "trade agreement" that the American people don't want.

``The name of the agreement is perhaps misleading because it's not at all like Nafta,'' Portman said. ``I try to call it Cafta-DR or DR-Cafta so that they don't rhyme.''
--U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman


Mr. Portman was unanimously approved by Congress when nominated for this position.
20 posted on 06/13/2005 8:32:00 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pbrown
It's tougher to be a terrorist because of intelligence cooperation, law-enforcement cooperation, homeland-security cooperation. That is a successful example of integration with the trade. Despite the imperfections, shall we say, in the WTO [World Trade Organization] system, that's an impressive global arrangement where countries voluntarily cede some of their sovereignty because they themselves benefit from participating in a world-based system.

-- Richard N. Haass, president, Council on Foreign Relations; author, The Opportunity

May 31, 2005

** Say, when did we all voluntarily cede our sovereignty to the WTO? The "free traders" keep telling us this isn't so.
21 posted on 06/13/2005 8:49:00 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Say, when did we all voluntarily cede our sovereignty to the WTO? The "free traders" keep telling us this isn't so.

When Americans weren't paying attention to what our government was up too.

22 posted on 06/13/2005 9:08:11 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SunnyD1182

Have you had a chance to read farther down the thread? A fellow protectionist points-out that our labor laws will now be approved by the ILO. So which is it? Free trade creates sweatshops in Latin America, or free trade imposes global workers' rights laws on us?


23 posted on 06/13/2005 9:10:47 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

If some yob named Richard Haass says it, it must be true.


24 posted on 06/13/2005 9:11:44 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

For the last time, it's not "Free Trader's" it's "Free Traitor's" Got it! Jeez!


25 posted on 06/13/2005 9:14:11 PM PDT by mr_hammer (I call them as I see them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mr_hammer
Oh what the heck, time to post something "subversive," seeing that I'm a "traitor."

Trade agreements fully preserve a state’s right to regulate.

Trade agreements do not automatically preempt or invalidate state and local laws.

Trade panels cannot overturn or change U.S federal, state or local laws.


Source


26 posted on 06/13/2005 9:19:55 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Do you have a source for that Portman quote? Sorry for having to ask.


27 posted on 06/13/2005 9:23:49 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Trade agreements fully preserve a state’s right to regulate.

"That's their spin," retorts Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. "We clearly believe that [GATS] opens the door for future challenges to state sovereignty."
28 posted on 06/13/2005 9:45:10 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
CAFTA has nothing really to do with sugar. Sugar is just a convenient boogeyman for the mainstream media to use to make the people angry and support CAFTA out of anger. If you read form USTR Robert Zoellicks speech of May 16 you will see that the purpose of CAFTA is to merge the the Central American countries with the North American Community, and ultimately the whole hemisphere. If our sellout leaders accomplish this, what form of government do you think the US will take? Certainly the Constitution will no longer apply because the "traders" are implenting through treaty and foreign aid a type of "civil society" where a corporatist fascism reigns and the voice of the people becomes the voice of the NGO.

This corporatist fascism is apparent in the lack of enforcement of US borders, the governmental elites( and it galls me that in America we have come to have an elite "class" in our government contrary to the purposes of our founders)find it convenient to ignore their duty to protect the country from invasion, and to uphold laws that they passed that deal with immigration and the permission to work in this country.


I agree with respect to our borders and the shameful performance of the government in that area. However, I disagree about the sugar and the purpose of CAFTA in general. I'm all for free trade and taking some of the power away from the environmentalist nuts and the "workers rights" socialist (which is what I believe CAFTA does).
29 posted on 06/14/2005 12:08:42 AM PDT by Jaysun (No matter how hot she is, some man, somewhere, is tired of her sh*t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

More hearsay evidence. So you found another opinon. Big whup.


30 posted on 06/14/2005 4:39:24 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Interesting discussion bump!


31 posted on 06/14/2005 4:57:40 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun

I thought this was a trade agreement, didn't realize it was a way to reduce others political clout or ability to negotiate ones future earnings. (Sarcasm!)

You see that is eaxctly the point. This thing is being touted as again, a wealth creator, but in your own words seeks to undermine another's political point of view by "rule of law"


32 posted on 06/14/2005 4:59:41 AM PDT by mr_hammer (I call them as I see them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

bfl


33 posted on 06/14/2005 5:19:38 AM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun

Open the CAFTA document and go to page 20 to read what it says about 'sugar'.

Article 3.15: Sugar Compensation Mechanism
1. In any year, the United States may, at its option, apply a mechanism that results in compensation to a Party’s exporters of sugar goods in lieu of according duty-free treatment to some or all of the duty-free quantity of sugar goods established for that Party in the United States’

Schedule to Annex 3.3. Such compensation shall be equivalent to the estimated economic rents that the Party’s exporters would have obtained on exports to the United States of any such amounts of sugar goods and shall be provided within 30 days after this option is exercised. The United States shall provide the Party with 90 days prior notice of its intent to exercise this option and, upon request, will enter into consultations with the Party regarding the application of the mechanism.

2. For purposes of this Article, sugar good means a good provided for in the tariff items listed in subparagraph 3(c) of Annex 1 to the U.S. Schedule to Annex 3.3.

Further search to read what it says about 'sugar'.

1806.10
A change to subheading 1806.10 from any other heading, provided that such products of 1806.10 containing 90% or more by dry weight of sugar do not contain non-originating
sugar of chapter 17 and that products of 1806.10 containing less than 90% by dry weight of sugar do not contain more than 35% by weight of non-originating sugar of chapter 17.

Annex 4.1-12 DRAFT
Subject to Legal Review for Accuracy, Clarity, and Consistency January 28, 2004 subheading except from heading 22.03 through 22.09;
A change to sugar syrups of subheading 2106.90 from any other chapter, except from chapter 17;


34 posted on 06/14/2005 6:06:36 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( Report every illegal alien that you meet. Call 866-347-2423, Employers use 888-464-4218)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; Jaysun
Increased sugar market access for Central America and the Dominican Republic in the first year under the CAFTA-DR amounts to only a small portion of U.S. sugar production. The increased access is equal to little more than one day’s production in the United States.

In the first year, increased sugar market access for Central America and the Dominican Republic under the CAFTA-DR will amount to about 1.2 percent of current U.S. sugar consumption, growing very slowly over 15 years to about 1.7 percent of current consumption. Total U.S. sugar imports have declined by about one-third since the mid-1990s. Sugar imports under the CAFTA-DR would not come close to returning total U.S. sugar imports to those levels.

U.S. over-quota tariffs on sugar will not change under the CAFTA-DR. The U.S. over-quota tariff is prohibitive at well over 100 percent, one of the highest tariffs in the U.S. tariff schedule.

Source: Office of the U.S. Trade Reprentative
35 posted on 06/14/2005 7:09:18 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
DR-CAFTA will turn sugar into a dumped commodity on international markets. Unlike other major U.S. commodity programs, the sugar program actually prevents dumping on the world market at below the cost of production. The sugar compensation mechanism in the DR-CAFTA allows the U.S. government to either pay DR-CAFTA countries in cash or sugar to compensate for blocked imports. This unsound provision quickly could turn the U.S. sugar program from a nondumping into a dumping program.

Another thread on CAFTA and sugar

CAFTA is a bad law written by a multinational group and an unelected, unconstitutional "trade minister" to advance the control of multinationals in the sugar market, not to protect individual rights as our legislators are directed by the US Constitution to do.
36 posted on 06/14/2005 8:38:23 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

When the most-favored-nation and national treatment obligations start to come to life who will be on our side of the fence?(1) Just what International Corporation is going to stand up to the administrative tribunal or court of the respondent and shout "Protect America" from regional government?(2)

You seem to have on helluva lot of faith in the Secretary-General of the UN. I'm glad you do even after to Food for Oil fiasco because I don't. He has shown me that he is susceptible to the common greed for money. His objectivity, reliability, and sound judgment are in serious question, IMO.

"Article 10.19: Selection of Arbitrators
"(the) tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties.
2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section."

Since you appear to be a self appointed expert on this subject, please explain just what this means to me.(3)

"4. For purposes of Article 39 of the ICSID Convention and Article 7 of Schedule C to the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, and without prejudice to an objection to an
arbitrator on a ground other than nationality:"

You do realize that all decisions are final "other than Article 16.2.1(a)." don't you?(4)

"Subject to Legal Review for Accuracy, Clarity, and Consistency
January 28, 2004
6. If the matter concerns whether a Party is conforming to its obligations under Article 16.2.1(a), and the consulting Parties have failed to resolve the matter within 60 days of a request under paragraph 1, the complaining Party may request consultations under Article 20.4 (Consultations) or a meeting of the Commission under Article 20.5 (Commission – Good Offices, Conciliation, and Mediation) and, as provided in Chapter Twenty (Dispute Settlement),
thereafter have recourse to the other provisions of that Chapter. The Council may, as appropriate, provide information to the Commission on consultations held on the matter.
7. No Party may have recourse to dispute settlement under this Agreement for any matter arising under any provision of this Chapter other than Article 16.2.1(a)."


Is this a bit of favoritism towards Nicaragua?(5) I'm just asking because we also have low income families, small and midsize enterprises in my community.

"8 Sector:
Obligations Concerned: National Treatment (Article XX)
Description: Nicaragua reserves the right to accord benefits to financial institutions or public entities which supply financial services, wholly or majority owned by the State and which are established with a public interest purpose, including but not limited to agriculture production finance, housing credits for low income families, and credits for small and midsize enterprises."

I am keeping in mind that this entire document is "Subject to Legal Review for Accuracy, Clarity, and Consistency", so I do have reason to doubt that I am looking at the final draft. Correct?(5)Or will it be changed after the vote in Congress by the tribunal arbitrators?(7)

How is the United States affected by section
112(b)(5)(B) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) (19 USC 3721(b), section 204(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) (19 USC 3203(b)(3)(B)(ii)), or section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of the Carribean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA)and the section 204(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C.
3203(b)(3)(B)(vi)(IV)) and why are they referenced here?(8)

I see a lot of protections for Costa Rico, Honduras, Guatemala, to Salvadorian nationals born in El Salvador or enterprises organized under Salvadorian law where I don't see the same concerns for the United States. Any ideas why?(8)

It seems that we are more concerned with other countries economic staus than we are our own. Why?(10)

Please answer all 10 questions in your reply. I realize that you will probably have to do some research but I'm willing to wait for your properly researched answers. Time isn't of the essence here.


37 posted on 06/14/2005 9:22:10 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( Report every illegal alien that you meet. Call 866-347-2423, Employers use 888-464-4218)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

>>over 15 years to about 1.7 percent of current consumption.<<

Where does this time period and quantity estimate come from? Do you have the tonnage data?


38 posted on 06/14/2005 9:23:54 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( Report every illegal alien that you meet. Call 866-347-2423, Employers use 888-464-4218)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mr_hammer
You see that is eaxctly the point. This thing is being touted as again, a wealth creator, but in your own words seeks to undermine another's political point of view by "rule of law"

It merely corrects a great injustice. We've been subject to the whims of the liberals and they've been using their own "rule of law" to do things like protect snails or name some guy's ranch a "wetland". Sorry my friend, some points of view just aren't legitimate. There's a right and a wrong and this helps put us on the right again.
39 posted on 06/14/2005 10:28:10 AM PDT by Jaysun (No matter how hot she is, some man, somewhere, is tired of her sh*t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

That's exactly what I'm talking about.


40 posted on 06/14/2005 10:30:54 AM PDT by Jaysun (No matter how hot she is, some man, somewhere, is tired of her sh*t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
Sugar cane farms are ugly places anyway. So what if we put those farmers out of business. Right? WRONG!
41 posted on 06/14/2005 10:47:21 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( Report every illegal alien that you meet. Call 866-347-2423, Employers use 888-464-4218)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

So who am i to believe? You or the article?


42 posted on 06/14/2005 10:56:01 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

I listed my source. It is a government source. One can only presume that it uses government data. One can suspect that the government data is fudged, but one would have to prove it himself.


43 posted on 06/14/2005 11:08:33 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
You seem to have on helluva lot of faith in the Secretary-General of the UN.

Show me. Where?

44 posted on 06/14/2005 11:10:24 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

45 posted on 06/14/2005 11:30:53 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I asked 10 questions. Please list your answers/replies in order to the numbers or don't bother at all.


46 posted on 06/14/2005 11:36:15 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( Report every illegal alien that you meet. Call 866-347-2423, Employers use 888-464-4218)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Zoellick also spoke about the broader benefits of free trade. He said that "Free trade agreements can help establish the basic building blocks for sustainable development.

47 posted on 06/14/2005 11:37:11 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Sorry to bother you. Do your own research. I gave you a good place to start.


48 posted on 06/14/2005 11:38:50 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Sorry, I misunderstood your #46. I didn't realize that you had embedded actual questions in all that boilerplate language earlier. I'll get back to you.


49 posted on 06/14/2005 11:43:49 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Read the first paragraph of the article.


50 posted on 06/14/2005 11:52:29 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson