CAFTA Nations May Pay for Missed Deadline

AP ^ | Dec 31, 2005 | JUAN CARLOS LLORCA

[hedgetrimmer]

Six Latin American governments had hoped to start 2006 with a free trade zone that would open the U.S. market to their fledgling industries. Instead, they bogged down in making legal and regulatory reforms, delaying the trade union that was supposed to take effect Sunday.

Proponents of the Central America Free Trade Agreement — CAFTA — fear the delay will mean painful business and trade losses in a region of widespread poverty.

Countries that made extra investments in their products say the holdup postpones the long-anticipated payoff of access to U.S. markets for sectors such as the struggling textile and assembly-for-export industries.

"In Guatemala, we were planning on economic growth of 4.4 percent — the most robust of the region — thanks to CAFTA," said Juan Carlos Paiz, president of the Guatemalan Union of Nontraditional Products.

But the delay is good news for farm groups and others who fought the agreement, arguing it will ruin small producers and other local businesses. U.S. critics say the measure will cost American jobs, particularly in the sugar and textile industries.

"It's a victory, (although) a temporary one," said Jose Pinzon, secretary-general of the Guatemalan General Workers Federation.

President Bush signed the agreement with leaders of five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic in May and Congress ratified it in August.

All six countries must make "technical changes" in customs procedures and regulations regarding intellectual property rights, telecommunications and procurement, said Stephen Norton spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative's Office.

Some countries must also formally eliminate tariffs and obstacles to investment.

Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are scrambling to meet the entry requirements by Feb. 1. Nicaragua says it probably won't join until March, while the Dominican Republic says it won't be ready until July 1.

Costa Rica still has not ratified the pact, and may not even join at all. Lawmakers aren't scheduled to debate the topic before February at the earliest.

"None of the Central American nations can begin because they haven't — we haven't — finished clarifying topics" with the U.S. government, said Guatemalan Economy Minister Marcio Cuevas.

Norton said U.S. officials were helping CAFTA nations prepare for the agreement's implementation and predicted they would be added on "a rolling basis."

"The implementation process should not be rushed," he said. "Otherwise the benefits of CAFTA to farmers, workers, businesses and consumers of the United States and of its CAFTA partners could be jeopardized."

Honduras has tackled most of the legal reforms, but President Ricardo Maduro must still approve a series of regulations needed for exporting agricultural products to the United States.

El Salvador's Congress has approved a package of reforms, and President Tony Saca is expected to sign them in early January.

Holiday vacations kept Guatemalan legislators from approving reforms, while in Nicaragua lawmakers are still hashing out intellectual property and copyright laws.

Paiz, of the Guatemalan Union of Nontraditional Products, blamed the United States in large part for the delay, saying Washington was requiring too much of its poorer partners.

"The United States isn't holding open or fair negotiations now," Paiz said. "What we signed was sufficient, and they shouldn't have to ask for more."

[hedgetrimmer]

What if the US held "free trade" party and nobody came?

Sounds like the CAFTA is one of those.

[hedgetrimmer]

Norton said U.S. officials were helping CAFTA nations prepare for the agreement's implementation and predicted they would be added on "a rolling basis."

Is there legal authority for the US to do this? It sounds like they are just making up the rules as they go.

***
Hey central America! We'll write a trade agreement. We'll pass it in congress then you all sign.

Oh, some of you don't want to sign? Thats ok, we'll sign some of you now, and some of you later. No,no, we won't run the agreement through congress to correct the language, it won't pass again. We'll just make it up was we go. What about Constitutional government and elected representation you say? What's that?

[jeremiah]

What? A treaty carries the same force as the constitution? It basically amends the constitution? I am sure glad the R's are for strict interpretation. It won't be long until we have a trade deficit with all of the Central American countries, not just with Mexico.

[B4Ranch]

>>All six countries must make "technical changes" in customs procedures <<

No fences, is that part of the deal?

The answer for us is very simple

[johnmecainrino]

You want to vote Mike Pence out to get speaker pelosi?

[nightdriver]

No mention of payoffs to various Central American officials?

That's normally a line item written right into the agreement with Latin American countries.

They love that geetus (sp?) too much for this sort of thing to work.

[antisocial]

" What about Constitutional government and elected representation you say? What's that?"

Sadly, that is becoming a thing of the past, and the people just don't seem to care. Maybe it's because there's so many that are ignorant of our Constitution, because they are here illegally, or attended public schools!

[1rudeboy]

It sounds like they are just making up the rules as they go.

I must admit, even though the premise is ridiculous, insisting that all parties to an agreement ratify it at once is quite funny.

[B4Ranch]

You bet I would if I could get them all replaced with people who actually believe in their Oath of Office. We would be out of the UN in 20 minutes. All these globalist treaties would be trashed by lunchtime. The illegals would be packing up by the time the 6pm news aired on TV.

[hedgetrimmer]

"We will do it on a rolling basis, as countries make changes in law and regulation necessary to meet the CAFTA commitments," Norton said.

What is it the "free traders" say? "Free trade" agreements don't change domestic laws or affect sovereignty? Clearly the USTR doesn't believe this lie.

[hedgetrimmer]

Instead, they bogged down in making legal and regulatory reforms, delaying the trade union that was supposed to take effect today.

"free" trade. uh huh.

[1rudeboy]

Politicians bog things down? I'm shocked.

[hedgetrimmer]

You forgot the second part of the sentence: "free trade" forces change in sovereign laws.

[1rudeboy]

Politicians force changes in laws? That's deep.

[hedgetrimmer]

Politicians force changes in laws? That's deep

Since you have studied law, one presumes you understand that law is supposed to come from the governed, not from international bureaucracies and the governments and corporations of foreign countries. By all appearances though, it looks like you'll take any travesty of government as long as it fraudulently names itself "free".

[1rudeboy]

Law does not come from the governed, but from the representatives the governed elect. If you cannot understand that simple distinction in our system, then any conversation about how other systems compare with ours, and how governments enter into agreements with each other is a complete waste of time.

[hedgetrimmer]

You are so public schooled.

Citizens go to their representatives to propose laws. THAT is how our government is designed to work. This is the process that is derived from an association "by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good."

Note that the convenant is with citizens, NOT the WTO, not the CAFTA committee.

[1rudeboy]

Then propose a law abolishing the CAFTA committee, whatever that is. Problem solved. [chuckle]

[Toddsterpatriot]

What? A treaty carries the same force as the constitution? It basically amends the constitution?

How did you dream this up?

[hedgetrimmer]

How about a law abolishing Pell grants? They appear to be a waste of taxpayer money, based on your comments.

[1rudeboy]

One rule that I have learned during my converstations with you is that whenever you write, "based on your comments," or some such nonsense, it is unmitigated BS. Put up or shut up.

[hedgetrimmer]

How about a law abolishing Pell grants? They appear to be a waste of taxpayer money, based on the comments you have made about what you believe to be the source of law in American government.

[1rudeboy]

Sorry for the delay in response, but I was trying to diagram your above sentence while laughing.

Pell Grants appear to be a waste of money because I claim that the source of law in America is through elected representation? LOLOLOLOLOL

[TXBSAFH]

I propose a law restoring the sovernty (SP?)of this country, one abolishing NAFTA and CAFTA.

[1rudeboy]

Let me know how you (and hedgetrimmer) fare.

[TXBSAFH]

With those two job sucking laws gone we will far quite well I assure you.

[1rudeboy]

I'm truly sorry they caused you to lose your job, but your experience is not universally shared.

[Toddsterpatriot]

With those two job sucking laws gone we will far(sic) quite well I assure you.

Yes, since NAFTA was passed the US has lost millions of jobs. Sorry.....I just found out that since NAFTA passed we actually have 21 million more jobs. I guess you're wrong. Again.

[TXBSAFH]

It is shared by many. And they vote.

[1rudeboy]

Yeah, for Nader and Buchanan.

[TXBSAFH]

Walmart greaters are a poor replacement for manufactoring jobs.

[TXBSAFH]

Yeah, for any politician that puts the interests of the middle class first.

[hedgetrimmer]

just found out that since NAFTA passed we actually have 21 million more jobs illegal aliens.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Walmart greaters(sic) are a poor replacement for manufactoring(sic) jobs.

Wow, there are 21,000,000 WalMart greeters?

[hedgetrimmer]

Get your "free traders" free press for Pat Buchanan, right here!

[Toddsterpatriot]

just found out that since NAFTA passed we actually have 21 million more jobs illegal aliens.

Then we should send those 21 million illegals back. Did you have another point?

[TXBSAFH]

Waiters, hair stylist, greater, all do not make a descent trade for good paying manufacturing jobs.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Waiters, hair stylist, greater(sic), all do not make a descent trade for good paying manufacturing jobs.

We lost good paying manufacturing jobs after NAFTA passed?

[TXBSAFH]

Yes, case in point a GM engine plant moved to Mexico. I know a former worker there.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, case in point a GM engine plant moved to Mexico. I know a former worker there.

And that happened the day after NAFTA passed? Or did it take longer?

[1rudeboy]

Let me tell you something . . . If Pat Buchanan is counting on FR for "face-time" in order to improve his political fortunes, IT'S NOT WORKING.

[1rudeboy]

Wow, there are 21,000,000 WalMart greeters?

According to the Democrats, and the "true" conservative wing here.

[TXBSAFH]

Within a year.

[hedgetrimmer]

No, he's counting on you to bump up his search engine indexes.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Within a year.

Now I don't have to tell you that the US manufacturing sector is larger than 1 GM engine plant, do I?

It's been about 11 years, is your friend still collecting a GM paycheck?

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, he's counting on you to bump up his search engine indexes.

Results 1 - 10 of about 50,900 for pat buchanan economic illiterate

[TXBSAFH]

NO. An many more plants ahve left this country as you well know.

[1rudeboy]

It's been about 11 years, is your friend still collecting a GM paycheck?

If he was UAW, probably.

[1rudeboy]

You crack me up.

[Toddsterpatriot]

NO. An many more plants ahve left this country as you well know.

Hmmmm...bad news for your friend. Between NAFTA passing in Nov 1993 and Nov 1997, the US added over 700,000 manufacturing jobs.

Skip Navigation Links		Latest Numbers
	U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
	Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

	www.bls.gov		Search | A-Z Index
BLS Home | Programs & Surveys | Get Detailed Statistics | Glossary | What's New | Find It! In DOL

	Change Output Options:	From:		To:
	include graphs NEW!

Data extracted on: January 4, 2006 (12:07:40 PM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id:     CES3000000001 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector:  Manufacturing Industry:      Manufacturing NAICS Code:    N/A Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1993	16790	16806	16795	16771	16766	16742	16742	16741	16768	16778	16800	16815
1994	16853	16862	16896	16932	16962	17011	17027	17082	17114	17144	17187	17218
1995	17259	17264	17263	17278	17260	17250	17218	17241	17246	17215	17207	17230
1996	17206	17229	17192	17204	17221	17226	17222	17255	17253	17268	17276	17285
1997	17298	17316	17339	17351	17362	17387	17387	17451	17466	17513	17555	17587
1998	17621	17627	17637	17636	17624	17607	17421	17564	17558	17512	17466	17449
1999	17426	17394	17368	17342	17333	17294	17319	17288	17281	17275	17283	17277
2000	17285	17285	17302	17299	17276	17297	17325	17287	17232	17215	17204	17181
2001	17101	17030	16936	16801	16658	16511	16386	16240	16123	15972	15827	15710
2002	15584	15514	15441	15391	15336	15298	15259	15179	15128	15058	14993	14911
2003	14854	14780	14726	14615	14555	14494	14410	14373	14348	14328	14315	14297
2004	14283	14281	14291	14323	14347	14344	14341	14366	14352	14344	14337	14334
2005	14307	14321	14315	14300	14301	14276	14270	14260	14244	14259(p)	14270(p)
p : preliminary

 

Frequently Asked Questions | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey
Privacy & Security Statement | Linking to Our Site | Accessibility

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Postal Square Building 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington, DC 20212-0001

Phone: (202) 691-5200 Fax-on-demand: (202) 691-6325 Data questions: blsdata_staff@bls.gov Technical (web) questions: webmaster@bls.gov Other comments: feedback@bls.gov