Posted on 11/06/2005 8:53:30 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina - President Bush faced harsh criticism from Latin American presidents over a free-trade proposal, but no clear winners and losers emerged.
There were no clear winners or losers after the Fourth Summit of the Americas ended here Saturday: President Bush and 33 other leaders of the region wound up the two-day meeting brutally divided over a hemisphere-wide free trade zone first proposed in Miami more than a decade ago.
Although the summit was supposed to have focused largely on the issue of job creation, the Free Trade Area of Americas dominated the debate, with Bush pushing for it and leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez leading the opposition.
The proposed free-trade zone, which was to have been operational by this year, would eliminate or substantially lower tariffs on goods moving between North and South American countries, streamline customs and remove other barriers to trade.
But the plan has stalled over disagreements on subsidies to U.S. farmers, which some Latin American leaders say make it very difficult for Latin American farmers to compete worldwide. The United States also hopes to put in place hemisphere-wide intellectual property standards that could reduce piracy of copyrighted material in major markets such as Brazil. Latin America argues that paying royalties to U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers make prescription drugs unaffordable for most of its population.
Chávez, who arrived in this coastal town saying he wanted to ''bury'' the FTAA and then joined thousands of leftist protesters, predictably claimed victory because the final declaration did not repeat previous summits' unanimous statements of support for the trade agreement.
Instead, the heads of state declaration that was signed Saturday recognized that 29 countries, led by the U.S. and Mexico, favor the FTAA, while Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay and Paraguay oppose it. And Saturday's statement called for convening a commission to study the issue after the December round of talks at the World Trade Organization. The dissenting countries argued that world trade issues directly affect regional trade initiatives such as this one.
''This is not a failure of the Free Trade Area of the Americas,'' Argentine Foreign Minister Rafael Bielsa said. If certain conditions are met, he added, negotiations could move forward. Argentina and Brazil in particular want cutbacks in U.S. agricultural subsidies to level the playing field.
But Bielsa added a stiff warning: ``If a treaty lacks what our country demands, then, yes, that treaty is dead.''
''It turned out well,'' said U.S. assistant of state for Latin American affairs Tom Shannon. ''Chávez came to Mar del Plata to bury FTAA. Instead he resurrected it. He provoked a very deep debate among the leaders about FTAA,'' he told The Herald.
The lack of agreement essentially reinforced the split in the hemisphere between two groups: the U.S.-led faction that favors the FTAA; and the five-country opposition front.
Bush, who had come to the summit with low expectations for his pro-FTAA campaign, did not comment on the dispute and left Argentina Saturday, before the end of the talks, for Brazil. There he is expected to meet President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva during a short visit.
But Mexican President Vicente Fox, who emerged at the summit as a spokesman for pro-FTAA countries and whose nation already belongs to the North American Free Trade Zone (NAFTA), said early Saturday that he was disappointed with the disagreements over trade.
''For Mexico and all the countries in the continent -- as we affirmed [at the previous summit] in Québec, Canada, four years ago, it's in our economic interest to use commerce, free commerce, the market system to stimulate employment and improve the income of our people,'' he said.
Fox and other supporters said the hemisphere-wide free trade zone could still be created without the five opposing countries through bilateral and subregional accords. Washington already has signed a free trade pact with Central America and the Dominican Republic and is negotiating another one with Andean nations.
''We are moving toward a continental agreement,'' Fox said, adding that his country also was going ahead with a special trade arrangement with Chile.
Some participants privately expressed frustration, beyond the trade dispute and even beyond the usual grousing that accompanies such gatherings.
From the start, the U.S. and Mexican governments complained about what they saw as the liberal agenda for the talks set by populist Argentine President Néstor Kirchner's government as host of the summit. Bush was constantly under fire by street protesters who turned violent briefly on Friday as well as by Chávez and even the host government.
Chávez, a close ally of Cuban President Fidel Castro, said the trade zone would only widen the gap between Latin America's rich and poor. Chávez is a frequent critic of Bush, having accused him of everything from attempting to overthrow his government in a 2002 coup to preparing to launch a military invasion against Venezuela. Washington has strongly denied all charges.
Kirchner himself had harsh public words for Bush and his administration; at one point, he called for the U.S. government to be a ''responsible leader'' in the region.
Bielsa nevertheless said he was satisfied with the meetings because the final declaration included a call for making a priority of creating jobs in the region -- the summit's official theme.
''For me, this summit has been a success,'' he said.
What was your previous user name on FR before you got banned and what is your user name on LibertyPost?
>> BUSH IS BRUISED BUT NOT BEATEN IN TALKS
Sounds like he got the $hit kicked out of him on a thread.
You may loose the argument, but you can still be in the right.
The facts dispute your statement. Do you have anything to back that up? Why hasn't the price of goods reduced with 20 million "guest workers" already here? Why are prices no higher in areas without much immigration? Remember there are 3.6 million visa overstays (above the illegal immigration count) roaming around this nation and no one knows where they are. With FTAA, we can only look forward to more of this:
What is a Colonia?
Texas Secretary of State's Definition: The term "colonia," in Spanish means a community or neighborhood. The Office of the Secretary of State defines a "colonia" as a residential area along the Texas-Mexico border that may lack some of the most basic living necessities, such as potable water and sewer systems, electricity, paved roads, and safe and sanitary housing.
In recent years the Texas-Mexico border region has experienced an explosion of growth in population and industrial activity. Although growth has resulted in economic opportunities, it has also intensified the environmental health and social challenges.
Among the border states, Texas has the largest number of colonias approximately 1,800 communities, with more than 500,000 residents. Sixty-five percent of all residents, and 85% of residents under the age of 18, were born in the United States. (aka Anchor babies) These Americans live in extreme poverty and often are unaware of the services that the United States and Texas can provide for them. Ninety-eight percent of the residents are Hispanic and speak little or no English.
(see photos - http://www-apps.niehs.nih.gov/outreach-education/News/spotarch/spot0503.cfm)
Welcome to the Colonias Home Page "One of government’s chief responsibilities is to help Texans with the greatest needs. The Secretary of State’s Ombudsman Program is a central part of our initiatives to assist needy Texans living in colonias. The program is helping to provide better roads, bring water and wastewater infrastructure to areas that lack these basic services, and improve the quality of life for some of Texas’ neediest citizens." - Governor Rick Perry
Most of the goods we import are made by cheaper labor from third world countries and hence we pay less for it.
The vast majority of the 15 millions illegal immigrants in the US do not want in the manufacturing sector.
They don't?
want=work.
Oh, that's informative. I asked you to back your statement that we would be paying 3 times for our goods with out foreign "help". Forgive me for thinking you might want to give us something to back that up. BS back at ya.
Any person with an IQ over 80 will know that this is especially true when the cost of building the infrastructure that you use to manufacture your product is subsidized by the taxpayers in the United States.
>It is interesting how this was initiated durng the previous administration and Bush gets the blame. When Clinton roamed the world promoting this stuff it was wonderful.<
To his cult, anything Clinton did was wonderful, even the crimes. Recently, an unabashedly-enamored European female reporter said that Monica Lewinsky was "lucky".
You're actually in favor of completely open borders? Have you even thought about what this means? Do you think the infrastructure of our country can accommodate the probable doubling of our population due to "free movement" of third world residents? Who will pay the bills? Many states are already struggling with paying the bills to support the illegal aliens already here because of a President who refuses to enforce immigration laws.
You seem very concerned with the price of lettuce. Have you thought about American jobs? Have you no concern for the sovereignty of America? If this mess is accomplished, you'll get cheap lettuce all right, but you'll also witness America turning into a third world hole.
You said 3 times cheaper. Back it up, if your IQ is up to it.
Go to Western Europe and you know why a lot of goods there are 2 or 3 times more expensive than here in the US. This because they want to manufacture locally (Stupid union and dumb protectionism) and it cost them a lot money to do so hence everything get very expensive. The end results are that Europeans have lower standard of living than us, they buy less than what we do, their economy is stagnant or in recession, and they have double the unemployment rate that we have.
What's wrong with neo-cons?
Neo-Conservatives have little interest in any conservative philosophy or principles--traditionalsim, constitutionalism, limited government, free market economics or Christian civiliation itself.
Kind of painting with a broad brush, aren't you? Are you using neo-Con as a substitute for Jewish?
They're total liberals when it comes to anything having to do with domestic issues.
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.