Thread: CAFTA FREE TRADE WITH COSTA RICO

CAFTA
FREE TRADE WITH COSTA RICO
Click here: CAFTA's Corpse Revived
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060313/engler

CAFTA's Corpse Revived

THIS PASS WEEK IN COSTA RICO
teachers,doctors and hospital employees marched on their Congress against CAFTA and trucks were blocked from coming in...can't find the news article...seen it on the crawling news on fox...

Click here: Stop CAFTA
http://www.stopcafta.org/

Time to Tell Congress - "No More CAFTAs!" Take the Pledge for Trade Justice
No More CAFTAs Pledge for Trade Justice

Click here: CAFTA's Corpse Revived
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060313/engler

CAFTA's Corpse Revived

Mark Engler
Research assistance for this essay was provided by Kate Griffiths.

A year ago the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was a corpse. The Bush Administration resurrected it with the darkest of political sorcery. And now the lumbering beast is growing ever more monstrous--and arousing new controversy.

On March 1, two months after the planned January implementation date for the trade deal, CAFTA goes into effect between the United States and El Salvador. Yet for the five other countries that are party to the treaty--Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic--a starting date remains undetermined. In past months, contentious debates about the implementation of the agreement have triggered new protests throughout Central America, calling into question what the trade pact will look like in practice.

After the White House succeeded in narrowly passing CAFTA through Congress last summer, many "free trade" advocates considered the treaty a done deal. The agreement squeaked through the House in a historically close vote of 217 to 215 and appeared to have finally weathered the storm generated by its diverse critics.
A new wave of dissent in Central America, however, is creating fresh difficulties for CAFTA defenders. In Costa Rica, the only country that has yet to ratify the deal, former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias was expected to win back the presidency by a landslide in early February. In a surprise turn, his opponent Ottón Solís surged in the polls at the last minute, carried by his objection to Arias's strong pro-CAFTA stance. The final contest was so close as to warrant a lengthy recount to identify the winner. Based on the current tally, it appears almost certain that election officials will declare Arias the winner. Still, Solís's opposition party will likely carry enough seats in the legislative assembly to make it very difficult for Arias to pass CAFTA. Contending that the treaty would "bankrupt Costa Rica's agricultural sector," Solís vowed this week that, regardless of the election's final outcome, he would continue championing the demand for CAFTA's renegotiation.
As the experience of other Central American countries shows, controversy can reignite even after CAFTA is ratified. In Guatemala and El Salvador, the Bush Administration's advocacy on behalf of US special interests has sparked new disputes during the implementation phase of the treaty. There, US Trade Representative Rob Portman has tried to squeeze even more concessions out of the Central American partners before agreeing to certify their inclusion in the deal. Governments in Guatemala and El Salvador have cried foul, saying that the White House's current agenda for reforms goes beyond the terms of the agreement. According to the journal Inside US Trade, Portman has pushed for changes to Guatemalan intellectual property law that would extend the life of patents on many name-brand pharmaceuticals. Already, the United States has compelled Guatemala to repeal a law designed to expand access to generic drugs. Organizations such as Doctors Without Borders have denounced CAFTA's impact on the Guatemalan AIDS epidemic, arguing that limits on generic antiretrovirals amount to a death sentence for many patients. The White House's demands only worsen the restrictions. In response, Guatemalan Vice President Eduardo Stein has blasted the Bush Administration's hardball tactics: "It's an affront to Latin America when a government says it wants to be a 'partner' but then is only interested in our money and commodities," he told the Associated Press in December. On behalf of the American beef, pork and poultry lobby, Portman has also demanded that CAFTA countries waive their own food safety inspection requirements for meat imported from the United States. This condition contributed to the delays in the implementation in El Salvador and drew further denunciations from the Guatemalan government. In late February Enrique Lacs, Guatemala's vice minister of foreign trade, publicly complained, "The US negotiation practices have been wretched." Coming from Central American elites, such statements reveal an unusual level of resentment. "These governments are typically in line with the United States," says Burke Stansbury, executive director of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), "so the fact that they are making noise about provisions they say they didn't agree to is remarkable." Resentment extends far beyond government quarters. The United States pressed for changes to intellectual property laws that penalize poor vendors of pirated music and movies in the informal economy. The reforms represent a sharp reversal, as the Salvadoran government's attitude toward regulation had been lax. Joining more conventional opponents of CAFTA, thousands of street vendors have since staged raucous demonstrations against the constitutional changes, which threaten their already precarious livelihoods. In January Todd Tucker, research director at Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, cited polls showing plummeting public support for the trade agreement throughout the region: 76 percent of Salvadorans believed that CAFTA would not help their country; 65 percent of Guatemalans said it would worsen conditions; 61 percent of people in the Dominican Republic opposed the deal; and 77 percent in Honduras regarded their pro-CAFTA government as corrupt. Ongoing protests represent more than the untidy aftermath of a completed treaty negotiation. The current controversies around CAFTA implementation signal an escalating debate about the shape of corporate globalization in the Americas. CAFTA's provisions mandating the reduction of specific tariffs are clear. But some of the most dramatic implications of the agreement, like privatization, are not as well defined. In coming years they will be contested in national parliaments, in trade courts and on the streets. "Neoliberal governments in the region are going to try to use CAFTA to privatize things like water and healthcare," says Stansbury. "That's something that people can stop. It's the new battlefield." Conflict also continues in the United States, where a final CAFTA controversy is brewing. Up until the very eve of the House vote last July, the White House did not have the support it needed to pass CAFTA. In the end, the Bush Administration reversed key votes with a series of pork barrel buyoffs that was blatant even by Beltway standards. In mid-February, Public Citizen released a report exploring corporate ties to the elected officials who cast the decisive votes. From January to September 2005, a handful of key representatives received $2.8 million in campaign contributions from political action committees representing industries that stand to benefit from CAFTA. Of particular note are the Democratic Representatives who broke ranks to side with the Bush Administration, a group known as the CAFTA 15. The Public Citizen report includes a copy of an invitation to a $1,000-per-plate fundraiser held on September 7 in honor of these Democrats. The event was sponsored by the PACs of corporations including Pfizer, Procter & Gamble and Motorola. Unions and fair-trade groups have been less appreciative than corporate PACs of the CAFTA 15's betrayal. In Illinois the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which backed freshman Democrat Melissa Bean in 2004, has vowed to withhold support this year because of her reversed vote. The state's AFL-CIO has similarly refused to endorse her re-election campaign. Other Representatives who voted for the treaty, including Henry Cuellar in Texas and Edolphus Towns in New York, face energetic primary challenges--supported by spurned labor and environmental constituencies. Be it in hard-fought electoral contests in Costa Rica and the United States, in official protests in Guatemala or in street demonstrations in El Salvador, the controversy that dogs CAFTA has already dispelled notions that the agreement will be quietly accepted.
Judging by the treaty's impact on working people throughout the Americas, and by its rocky reception thus far, CAFTA's proponents can expect more backlash to come.

'CAFTA 15' Dems May Survive Labor's Wrath

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... ived=False

August 17, 2006 09:07 AM Oh Man, Oman
Just like NAFTA, CAFTA and the other trade pacts, the Oman trade deal is the lovechild of politicians and Big Money.
July 21, 2006 10:00 AM

Click here: TomPaine.com - Oh Man, Oman
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/0 ... n_oman.php

Oh Man, Oman

David Sirota
July 21, 2006

David Sirota is The New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government—And How We Take It Back , (Crown, 2006). He is the co-chair of the nonpartisan Progressive States Network .Thirteen years after the celebrated passage of NAFTA, few in Washington, D.C.’s elite circles like to talk much about America’s trade policy. It’s the kind of issue that is either discussed in a barrage of meaningless, dishonest “world-is-flat” non-sequiturs, or whispered about in hushed tones in a way you’d talk about a salacious sex affair.That’s not surprising because on trade—as on no other issue—Congress has screwed ordinary Americans behind our back, publicly pledging loyalty to our interests while carrying on a steamy affair with Big Money interests that have bought our political process.The latest tryst in this sordid affair came this week, with the passage of the Oman Free Trade Agreement . But now, as Americans’ job security, wages and benefits are being decimated, more citizens are pulling back the sheets and figuring out what's going on. Try as the Establishment might to hide the truth, Americans are realizing that the economic havoc being wrought on the middle class is fueled not by some inexplicable force of nature, but by corrupt trade policies that are the lovechild of politicians and Big Money—trade policies that undermine U.S. national security and deliberately force Americans into an economic race to the bottom.Calling the Oman pact a “free” trade agreement is a deceptive misnomer. It is free only of provisions that would protect ordinary citizens, while it is chock full of ultra-protectionist measures designed to expand the profits of the corporations whose lobbyists wrote the bill.This hypocrisy was spelled out to lawmakers in the lead-up to the vote by more than 400 religious, environmental, labor, human rights and consumer advocacy organizations that begged Congress to reject the deal. For instance, the nonprofit Citizens Trade Campaign protested the exclusion of any provisions making the pact contingent on Oman verifiably improving its awful record of oppressing workers. In a letter to Congress, the group reminded lawmakers that Oman refuses to adhere to core International Labor Organization standards protecting workers rights to organize and that the State Department has documented forced labor and widespread human trafficking in Oman.Similarly, environmental groups like The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Friends of the Earth told lawmakers that, like other destructive trade agreements, the Oman deal excluded language “to clearly require either country to maintain and effectively enforce a set of basic environmental laws and regulations.”What’s in the trade pact is even worse than what isn’t. For instance, the nonprofit Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health warned lawmakers that the Oman pact cedes a lot of legal ground to pharmaceutical companies, at the expense millions, even billions, who need affordable, life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, Public Citizen exposed provisions allowing foreign governments to ow n critical U.S. national security assets such as our ports. That’s right—just a few months after the Dubai Ports controversy, in which politicians of both parties in Congress pledged to prevent foreign ownership of key security assets, those same politicians quietly inserted language into a trade pact that would cement the legality of such transactions for good.A trade deal like this that rewards worker oppression, undermines Americans’ job security, promotes environmental degradation, encourages health industry price gouging and weakens America’s post-9/11 security is nauseating to most Americans.But congressmen and senators are not most Americans. They live in a world where their job security has nothing to do with the public policies undermining ordinary citizens’ economic security, and everything to do with their ability to shake down corporate campaign contributions. It is a world, in short, where a travesty like the Oman Free Trade Agreement is celebrated because it is a vehicle to increase Big Money’s bottom line.The lack of labor protections in the pact encourages American companies to either directly exploit Oman’s oppressed workers, or use the threat of outsourcing to Oman as a way to extract wage and benefit concessions from American workers at home. The lack of environmental protections provides an incentive for companies to move operations overseas, so as to reduce the overhead incurred by having to adhere to basic standards in the United States. The inclusion of restrictive drug patent protections—now a staple of U.S. trade policy—preserves pharmaceutical companies’ ability to price gouge by making sure impoverished nations can never move forward with producing lower-priced generic drugs to fight plagues ravaging their populations. And the provisions allowing foreign ownership of strategic national security assets sets a precedent that national security will always come second to the corporate profit motive.The Oman pact followed what has become a well-rehearsed script and a well-trodden path for all trade deals. The White House first introduced the bill in the U.S. Senate. Trade deals typically start in this club of multimillionaires because lobbyists know the institution’s politeness and courtesy manifests itself as obedience and subservience to corporate wishes. And like clockwork, when the Oman pact came up for a vote, 10 Democrats—including progressive icons like Sen. Barack Obama—joined with 50 Republicans to pass the bill easily.The pact then moved to the House—a corrupt institution under the Republican leadership, to be sure, but one where by virtue of its size, things can be more unpredictable, especially in an election year. With a House majority in sight in 2006, Democrats should have viewed the pact as a perfect vehicle for defining Republicans on both corruption and national security. A defeat of the pact in the House would generate major headlines for the party on both scores, helping them contrast themselves with the GOP. And defeat was possible—more than enough maverick Republicans defied their leadership and indicated their opposition to the bill.But rest assured, the forces pushing the trade pact weren’t worried. As with nearly every trade pact that has come down the pike in the last two decades, a handful of Democrats joined with most Republicans to give the White House the votes it needed to overcome its own principled GOP mavericks, and undermine the majority of Democrats who voted against the pact. Those turncoats included lawmakers like Reps. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calf., Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., and Bill Jefferson, D-La., who represent districts with nearby ports that, thanks to their votes, can now be owned by foreign governments. Shocking? Not really. After years of corporate-funded organizations like the Democratic Leadership Council and its high-profile disciples like President Bill Clinton polluting the Democratic Party with never-actually-substantiated rhetoric about the supposed benefits to workers of these sell-out deals, lobbyists know they have a reliable cadre of Democrats willing to undermine their own party in deference to Big Money.Undoubtedly, there is a silver-lining, especially in considering the long view. Congressional margins in passing such trade deals are getting smaller. The recent Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was passed by just two votes in the House. The Oman trade pact—which was originally expected to pass by a very wide margin—passed by only eight votes. That’s real progress from just a few years back when similar trade pacts passed by wide gaps.Additionally, while trade has in the past been treated as an apolitical, bipartisan, Washington consensus issue, it is now being used as a potent political weapon on the campaign trail by a new breed of populists. At least three Republican lawmakers who voted for CAFTA voted against Oman after the Democrats challenging them for re-election energetically attacked them for their original vote. Likewise, in Ohio, Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown is putting his courageous efforts to reform America’s trade policy at the center of his campaign to unseat incumbent Republican Sen. Mike DeWine. Pundits have, not surprisingly, attacked Brown for his focus on trade—but polls show he is now in a statistical dead heat with DeWine, meaning trade could be a deciding issue in the most politically important state and most important Senate race in the country.Also not to be forgotten is how trade is forging powerful new coalitions between seemingly disparate interests. Just last week, the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Business and Industry Council (USBIC)—enemies on many issues—teamed up in hosting a summit at the National Press Club that launched a campaign to radically reform America’s trade policy for the better. The AFL-CIO wants its members’ economic rights protected. USBIC, which represents small, family-owned domestic manufacturers, wants a trade policy that stops creating unfair advantages for giant multinational corporations that outsource jobs. The two could make quite a team, especially in educating different constituencies all over America about how trade policy affects citizens’ livelihood.The debate over the Oman pact may be over, but the trade issue is not going away. The White House is pursuing new trade pacts with countries such as Malaysia—a country that essentially outlaws a minimum wage. It is also pushing a trade pact with South Korea that could include language to permit North Korea and its enslaved population to be included. As these and other deals come before Congress at the same time more Americans economic lives are destabilized, populist anger will continue to froth, regardless of the happy-talk that flows out of Washington.More Americans will want to know why their government is selling them out. More Americans will ask why we aren’t using America’s incredible economic leverage to craft trade policies that force other countries to end their oppressive policies as a condition of doing business with us. More Americans, in sum, will demand an end to the X-rated affair between Big Money and our government that is fueling a never-ending race to the bottom.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060630/pl ... 0630141952

http://www.citizenstrade.org/pdf/enviro ... tsheet.pdf

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/in ... 3F942625E6

Click here: Business rewards CAFTA 15
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/ ... news3.html

November 9, 2005

Business rewards CAFTA 15 By Josephine Hearn
Business interests are making good on their promise to reward 15 House Democrats who bucked their party’s leadership in July and backed the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).In the three months since CAFTA passed the House by two votes, business groups and individual companies have held more than a dozen fundraisers for members of the so-called “CAFTA 15” and have provided help selling the trade pact to skeptical constituents.CAFTA came to the House floor amid an intense battle between business groups and labor unions. Both sides
pulled out all the stops on the deal, threatening to retaliate against
lawmakers who opposed them and reward those who stood by them. Since then, a trio of high-tech interests has been leading an effort to hold fundraisers for Democrats who backed the trade deal. Three lobbyists — Matt Gelman at Microsoft, Melika Carroll at Intel and Alix Burns at TechNet — have been marshaling business interests to contribute to the lawmakers.Since August, they have held fundraisers for 10 of the 15 — Reps. Melissa Bean (Ill.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Norm Dicks (Wash.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Ruben Hinojosa (Texas), Jim Matheson (Utah), Greg Meeks (N.Y.), Dennis Moore (Kan.), Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Edolphus Towns (N.Y.) — according to sources with knowledge of the endeavor. They have plans to arrange fundraisers for two more — Reps. Bill Jefferson (La.) and Solomon Ortiz (Texas) — before Thanksgiving.“The word went out, no doubt about it, that now is the time to show the love,” one Democratic lobbyist said.“The issue was really important to us. We wanted to show them how much we appreciated that they walked the plank on it,” said another lobbyist who had pushed for CAFTA.Other lobbyists — including Scott Miller at Procter and Gamble, Steve Champlin at the Duberstein Group and Kirsten Chadwick at Fierce Isakowitz and Blaloch — have helped with the initiative. Champlin and Chadwick served as vote counters for the business coalition that successfully lobbied for CAFTA.Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers have pitched in as well.The Chamber held two fundraisers for Henry Cuellar in his south Texas district and has plans for a third in Washington tomorrow.The group has also helped lawmakers sell the agreement to business leaders back home. On Nov. 18, the Chamber will hold an event with Meeks in Queens, N.Y., to talk about the benefits of the deal. Ambassadors from three of the countries signing the deal — Guatemala, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic — are expected to attend. The group held similar events in Jefferson’s district before the July vote.Bill Miller, the Chamber’s vice president for congressional and public affairs, said that the group seeks to aid supportive lawmakers in whatever way it can.“There are some members for whom money is the most important thing, some members who prefer to have [Chamber] staff come in and do a town meeting, some people who want help with editorial boards or op-eds. We’ve reached out to them and asked what we can do to be helpful,” Miller said.Business groups held a fundraiser for all 15 CAFTA Democrats in early September.Labor groups too have largely stood by promises made three months ago at the height of the battle.Labor officials threatened “real and measurable consequences for opposing labor on this issue” in a letter sent to lawmakers before the vote.“The vote was a slap in the face we can’t ignore,” said Jeff Zack, spokesman for the International Association of Fire Fighters. “Our spigot has been turned off,” he said, referring to the union’s campaign donations.Zack noted that unions are considering backing challengers to some of the Democrats. Several unions met with a challenger to Bean last month. Zack said unions would hold a meeting soon to discuss supporting challenges to Bean, Moran and Cuellar, among others.Bean has sought to maintain good relationships with labor groups. She recently returned a $2,000 donation from Wal-Mart, which has attracted intense criticism from union officials.Several of the House’s most vulnerable Democrats, including Bean, Moore and Matheson, have not seen their overall fundraising totals change significantly because of decreasing support from labor or new infusions of cash from business interests.Bean has continued to post strong fundraising numbers, and Matheson and Moore have raised money at about the level they have throughout the year.Several lobbyists noted Matheson and Moore might have benefited from the vote, since they do not sit on powerful congressional committees and do not usually reap significant donations from corporations.

NOTE:AOL LAID OFF ABOUT 5,000 PEOPLE
AOL to lay off up to 5000 workers - U.S. Business - MSNBC.com
AOL said Thursday it would drop as many as 5000 employees, or a quarter of its global work force, within six months as the company restructures its business ...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14169456...m/id/14169456/
AOL HAD 16,000 EMPLOYEES
OTHER REPORTS ARE ABOUT 1,000 LAYOFF

INTEL
Click here: Intel Factories to Cost $9 Billions - Expensive expansion - Softpedia
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Fa ... 6906.shtml
Intel is building three 45 nanometer fabrics, introducing along the way the 65 nanometer quad-core Barcelona (Intel code-name: K8L) samples into mass production. D-1D in Oregon, Fab 32 in Arizona and Fab 28 in Israel are the next steps Intell is prepared to take. The combined investment for these three Fabs is worth well over $9 billion, money that are probably obtained after 10-12,000 employees worldwide were fired.
Click here: AOL Search results for "TECHNET LAYOFF"
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?inv ... NET+LAYOFF

H-1B workers face ugly backlash | Tech News on ZDNet "It allows all but a small handful of firms to lay off American workers and ... such as TechNet and the Information Technology Association of America, ...

Click here: Sirotablog: REPORT: Oman Trade Pact Permits Foreign Ownership of U.S. Nat’l Security Assets
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/in ... 3F942625E6
Sirotablog
Real-world wisdom from outside the beltway.


7/18/2006
REPORT: Oman Trade Pact Permits Foreign Ownership of U.S. Nat’l Security Assets
In an explosive report tonight, top House Democrats discovered provisions in the controversial Oman Free Trade Agreement that would permit foreign ownership of U.S. ports and other key national security assets. Three Democrats and one Republican held an emergency press conference today to expose the provisions just before the House is scheduled to vote on the Oman pact on Thursday. As Reuters reports, "Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman." Those provisions might also allow foreign ownership of other key national security assets, considering just after the recent Dubai Ports controversy, that country went ahead with plans to purchase a major U.S. defense contractor. Last month, lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. Senate joined hands to pass the Oman Free Trade Agreement - which is being pushed aggressively by the Bush administration and its largest corporate donors. Lawmakers ignored major labor, human rights and environmental objections to the pact put forward by more than 400 union, religious and consumer groups. Among those voting for the pact in the Senate were Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), two Senators facing tough re-election bids who could face renewed criticism in their home states that they have sold out their constituents.The House vote is expected to be much closer than the Senate vote, and the explosive news tonight puts a new level of pressure on congressional lawmakers of both parties not to sell out. To date, a number of Democratic lawmakers have yet to say how they will vote on the Oman pact. Corporate lobbyists are aggressively targeting the 15 Democrats who last year capitulated to Big Money's demands and backed the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement. They are also targeting members of the New Democratic Coalition - the group of Democrats most closely affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.This vote is going to be extremely close - and bought-off lawmakers are scrambling to hide and/or obscure the details of these national security provisions. But as Reuters notes, even the Bush adminstration's trade representative acknowleges that the national security provisions create an exploitable security hole. That means that regardless of the propaganda efforts, the upcoming vote will put House members on record not only on economic issues, but on national security issues. Are these lawmakers going to sell out America's national security? Or are they going to stand up to Big Money interests and say this trade deal and others like it are unacceptable? Contact your House Member immediately and tell them you expect them to put America's national security first.
UPDATE: It has come to my attention that Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) and Lou Dobbs have both previously spoken out on these exact national security concerns with regard to the Oman Free Trade Deal. I apologize for not citing them earlier - they originally broke the story.
Posted by David Sirota at 10:27 PM | Link
categories: "Free" Trade, National Insecurity
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00190

U.S.-Oman FTA
Public Citizen | Oman FTA - U.S.-Oman FTA
http://www.citizen.org/trade/oman/
On January 19, 2006 the United States and the Middle Eastern country of Oman signed a free trade agreement. The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA) is part of the Bush administration's strategy to expand NAFTA to the Middle East by creating a Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA). OFTA replicates the failed trade model embodied in NAFTA and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
Fact Sheet: Talking Points on the U.S.-Oman FTA
Citizens Trade Campaign Archive on the U.S.-Oman FTA
As a result of deep concerns about labor abuses and national security, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives was unable to garner the broad majority in Congress it had hoped for to pass the Oman Free Trade Agreement. After several months of heated debate, the deal passed by a narrow margin July 20th, 2006.Click here to see if your representative supported or opposed the OFTA, and to hold him or her accountable.»
The Full Story: Close Vote on Tiny Oman Free Trade Agreement Exposes Shifts in U.S. Trade Politics
» Foreign Policy in Focus: Congress Approves Flawed Oman Trade Pact
» Statement of Lori Wallach: Narrow Vote on Oman Free Trade Agreement Exposes Shift in U.S. Trade Politics
» Statement of Congressman Murtha on the Oman Free Trade Agreement
» Congress Approves Flawed Oman Trade Pact

Public Citizen | WTO - World Trade Organization - World Trade Organization (WTO)
http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/
World Trade Organization (WTO)

Read Global Trade Watch's Analysis of the Recent WTO Doha Round Talks Collapse
Read key findings from the new book Whose Trade Organization? A Comprehensive Guide to the WTO by Lori Wallach and Patrick Woodall
Order Whose Trade Organization? now
Established in 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a powerful new global commerce agency, which transformed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into an enforceable global commerce code. The WTO is one of the main mechanisms of corporate globalization.Under the WTO's system of corporate-managed trade, economic efficiency, reflected in short-run corporate profits, dominates other values. Decisions affecting the economy are to be confined to the private sector, while social and environmental costs are borne by the public.In November 1999, the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Third Ministerial Meeting in Seattle collapsed in spectacular fashion, in the face of unprecedented protest from people and governments around the world.The WTO and GATT Uruguay Round Agreements have functioned principally to pry open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of national and local economies; workers, farmers, indigenous peoples, women and other social groups; health and safety; the environment; and animal welfare. In addition, the WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the world's people. Find out more about the 6th WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong.» Read Lori Wallach's New Annotated Version of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration
» Study Cited As Proof of Small Developing Country Gains in WTO (Inside US Trade 11/25/2005)
» Watch video clips of Lori Wallach exposing the unethical nature of the WTO and other flawed trade agreements
» Our World Is Not For Sale Network - Read the New Sign-On Statement!
» Why the WTO Doha Round Talks Have Collapsed – and a Path Forward