Replies

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

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.