Thread: More CAFTA Failures for the Bush Admin. Thousands Protest

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=60352

More CAFTA Failures for the Bush Administration; Thousands Protest Free Trade Agreement in El Salvador

2/1/2006 4:37:00 PM

To: National and International desks

Contact: Burke Stansbury, of CISPES, 212-465-8115 ext. 205 or Andrew De Sousa of NISGUA, 202-368-2291

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- As President Bush touted the benefits of free trade in his State of the Union address, protests filled the streets of San Salvador on Jan. 31 in the latest of a string of events demonstrating the continued failure of the U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). The Bush Administration had hoped to celebrate the implementation of CAFTA on Jan. 1, but was forced to delay the start date until at least February. Now, even hopes of a March 1 date seem remote, and social movements are reinvigorated in their struggles to continue mobilizing against the worst aspects of the agreement, and to ultimately thwart the implementation process.

In recent weeks the U.S. Trade Representative has been insisting that the six countries involved in the agreement go beyond the original provisions, especially in the areas intellectual property rights and sanitary regulations. In particular, U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies have demanded legal changes in the Central American countries that would prevent generic drug companies from manufacturing low-cost medicines. The government of Guatemala has been particularly adamant in opposing such measures, and the vice-president has gone as far as to threaten to pull the country out of CAFTA if the USTR does not let up. Then, in mid-January the Bush administration added plant and animal health reforms to the mix of changes they are demanding before implementation, pushing Central American countries to eliminate domestic health regulations for U.S. meat exports.

"Clearly the Administration believes they have these countries backed in to a corner and is taking advantage of the situation to leverage even more benefits for U.S. corporations," said Andrew de Sousa of the Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala (NISGUA). "The costs for Central Americans will be very high, and thus people continue to resist"

In El Salvador, the controversial legal reforms have already been approved by the Legislative Assembly, reviving the anti- CAFTA movement that had grown in strength since the agreement was introduced in 2002.

"Any country negotiating with the Bush Administration right now should be wary of signing an agreement, given the example of consistently shifting the finish line for CAFTA in order to appease corporate supporters. There is no reason to believe they will not pull the same stunt with Peru, Panama, Colombia, or Ecuador," said Tom Ricker of the Quixote Center.

On Jan. 22 Presidents from the five Central American countries met to discuss CAFTA and also agreed to open a new regional facility for anti-terrorism and counter-narcotics monitoring in Guatemala. The facility would accompany a new U.S.-sponsored police school (the International Law Enforcement Academy or ILEA) that is expected to open this year in El Salvador. Said Burke Stansbury of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), "The rise in U.S. military aid and influence to Central America is clearly essential to the strategy of expanding corporate trade, and these new military facilities demonstrate a move towards combating increased popular resistance with force."

For more information visit http://www.stopcafta.org

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

The rise in U.S. military aid and influence to Central America is clearly essential to the strategy of expanding corporate trade, and these new military facilities demonstrate a move towards combating increased popular resistance with force."

I say "WHAT?????"

RR

On Jan. 22 Presidents from the five Central American countries met to discuss CAFTA and also agreed to open a new regional facility for anti-terrorism and counter-narcotics monitoring in Guatemala. The facility would accompany a new U.S.-sponsored police school (the International Law Enforcement Academy or ILEA) that is expected to open this year in El Salvador. Said Burke Stansbury of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), "The rise in U.S. military aid and influence to Central America is clearly essential to the strategy of expanding corporate trade, and these new military facilities demonstrate a move towards combating increased popular resistance with force."

THIS STINKS!!!

RR,

Looks like we were posting at the same time. Can you believe it!

Said Burke Stansbury of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), "The rise in U.S. military aid and influence to Central America is clearly essential to the strategy of expanding corporate trade, and these new military facilities demonstrate a move towards combating increased popular resistance with force."

I have read this 4 times trying to understand what it means, because I certainly pray it doesn't mean what it says.

CAFTA is pure evil.

We are trying to stand in the way of generic drugs which are affordable medicine. We are providing military aid to "combat popular resistance with FORCE?"

Perhaps I should get a fresh cup of coffee and pinch myself to ensure I'm just not experiencing a bad dream.

Okay, got the coffee, pinched myself, read it again and yep...it says "combat popular resistance with force".



And American Businesses want to do kill people using military force to increase their name brand drug sales?

I'm numb.

Tyranny is already in play.

these countries continue to fight this! Cafta is bad for everyone but the rich eliteists!

Has anyone elese noticed that since cafta passed, the quality of produce at the stores has gone to hell?

Does anyone here really believe that the newly awarded contract to Halliburton to build jails are for the illegal aliens?

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Originally Posted by Judy

Said Burke Stansbury of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), "The rise in U.S. military aid and influence to Central America is clearly essential to the strategy of expanding corporate trade, and these new military facilities demonstrate a move towards combating increased popular resistance with force."

I have read this 4 times trying to understand what it means, because I certainly pray it doesn't mean what it says.

CAFTA is pure evil.

We are trying to stand in the way of generic drugs which are affordable medicine. We are providing military aid to "combat popular resistance with FORCE?"

Perhaps I should get a fresh cup of coffee and pinch myself to ensure I'm just not experiencing a bad dream.

Okay, got the coffee, pinched myself, read it again and yep...it says "combat popular resistance with force".



And American Businesses want to do kill people using military force to increase their name brand drug sales?

I'm numb.

Tyranny is already in play.

You said it Judy. This is what happens when we let the inmates run the asylum known as the White House and Congress.

Looks like I'm not the only one concerned about these detentions camps being build by Halliburton.


http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-16588.html

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:12 am Post subject: Customs `camps' cause for concern

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_3470080

Article Last Updated: 2/02/2006 11:19 PM


Customs `camps' cause for concern

By Tom Hennessy, Columnist
Long Beach Press Telegram

Maybe a lifetime in the news business makes one paranoid. Or maybe it was just a matter of timing.
The story showed up in Tuesday's Press-Telegram, as I was reading "Night," Elie Wiesel's horrifying autobiography of a teenager in Buchenwald and Auschwitz.

Appearing on page A5, the story said the federal government had awarded a $385 million contract for the construction of "temporary detention facilities." These would be used, the story said, in the event of an "immigration emergency."

Jamie Zuieback, an official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), explained such an emergency like this: "If, for example, there were some sort of upheaval in another country that would cause mass migration, that's the type of situation that the contract would address."

That sounds a tad fuzzy, but let's concede that the camps do have something to do with immigration, illegal or not. In fact, there already are thousands of beds in place at various U.S. locations for the purpose of housing illegal immigrants.

But for anyone familiar with history U.S. or European the construction of detention camps for whatever purpose should prompt a chilling scenario.


Same folks
The new detention camps will be built by Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The latter, as you likely know, is the defense-related corporate giant with fists full of contracts involving the war in Iraq.
Halliburton was led by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000. Democrats in Congress have accused the administration of favoring the company via no-bid contracts. But KBR says the detention contract was competitive.

Tuesday's story also said the contract was awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, Halliburton says it was awarded by the Department of Homeland Security in support of ICE.

The contract is for a year, but includes four one-year options. It is a renewal of an existing ICE contract, notes Halliburton.

KBR, in fact, had the $9.7 million contract to build the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. This facility, popularly dubbed "Gitmo," holds 660 prisoners classified by the government as "enemy combatants."


Anyone care?
This column is written with the distinct feeling that not many people will give a hoot about any or all of this. But as already noted, a news story about construction of government detention centers should give us all pause.
Considering what took place in Nazi Germany, as well as the shameful incarceration of Japanese-Americans in 1942, no detention camp should be built without the widest possible public scrutiny.

Bottom line: The contract cries out for greater attention. So far, the government's expressed reason for building them is insufficient and ill-defined. And even if the camps do relate to illegal immigration, their purpose could be changed overnight.

This is an instance in which we could be well served by our representatives in Congress. They need to look at this and give constituents a better picture of what is going on.

Let's not have it said, years from now, that no one ever questioned this.


Tom Hennessy's viewpoint appears Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. He can be reached at (562) 499-1270 or by e-mail at Scribe17@aol.com