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.
So who am i to believe? You or the article?
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.
Show me. Where?
I asked 10 questions. Please list your answers/replies in order to the numbers or don't bother at all.
Sorry to bother you. Do your own research. I gave you a good place to start.
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.
Read the first paragraph of the article.
We didn't cede anything.
If a country is using unfair trade practices (take the US Steel Tarrifs, for example) the protesting country can take punitative action. By going to the WTO there is some kind of standard that confirms that the trade practices are indeed unfair, and that counter action is fair.
By going to the WTO, the offended country agrees not to take punative action until the WTO rules. If they don't want to take it to the WTO, then go ahead and take what ever action you want to, but the people you take the action against may be upset, and take a further action against you. Too much of this and poof, a trade war.
The US is currently subsidizing a number of export products, and has tarrifs on other goods. The people who want to compete are offended, and all they want to do is to sell their stuff for what they can get. The subsidy and tarrif distort the market, and hurt them.
Free trade doesnt need 700 plus pages. Canada has placed a tarrif on some US goods, because the US subsidizes other goods under the "Byrd Amendment" which prohibits dumping. If dumping is charged, the supplier who provides cheap stuff is fined, and the fine goes to his US competitor.
Of course US competetors all agree on one thing: that overseas competition has to be dumping! The fed pays for the prosecution and the corporation gets the money... great work, if you can get it.
It also opens industries in those countries to competition from US companies, including such government monopolies as telecommunications and insurance.
The price for this would be some marginally reduced cost for sugar for American consumers.
The people who oppose this agreement drive me nuts.
How many times does former USTR Robert Zoellick have to say that CAFTA isn't about trade, its about "alleviating poverty" and "giving hope" to central America before you get it?
How many times does Rob Portman have to say " I call it CAFTA-DR or DR-CAFTA so it doesn't rhyme with NAFTA" before you begin to understand this agreement isn't about trade?
How many times must the "free traders" be shown that CAFTA is about the "trade capacity building" giveaway of US taxpayer money, the illegal use of US domestic agencies to build foreign countries into competitors for US business on the taxpayer dime, where in their natural state they could not compete without the help of our disloyal federal government?
How many times must it be shown that the CAFTA and other "free trade" agreements bypass constitutional government by setting up an unconstitutional "trade minister" to negotiate deals in place of Congress, to cede sovereignty to the WTO to make decisions that the elected representatives of our government should be wholly responsible for, and that CAFTA sets up unelected "working groups" to implement the agreements in any way they see fit without any review or debate by the American people who just get stuck paying for it all? How many times?
You'd probably be #1 on the list who drives me nuts, because you want to discuss everything EXCEPT what the agreement actually provides.
Have you read one page of the agreement?
From #36
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."
The agreement has nothing to do with UN. Try again.
Where do you think it, the idea, originated?
They're not related in the least.
I'm preparing a sheet on CAFTA, it will be done this week.
The labor part amazes me.....I'll send a link when I'm done.
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.