http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinio ... ws-opinion

CAFTA for the multinationals

By Jeffrey Keating
Posted August 29 2005


In an Aug. 15 Monday Forum commentary, Florida FTAA Inc. President Jorge L. Arrizurieta wrote that the passage of CAFTA positively impacts the prospects for the Free Trade Area of the Americas. According to Arrizurieta, "the free trade movement … is alive and well" and "DR-CAFTA's passage will now create tremendous momentum for a new wave of key trade agreements involving the United States and our southern neighbors, particularly reigniting talks toward the conclusion of the Free Trade Area of the Americas."

Alive and well? The only reason CAFTA passed was President Bush's threats of loss of highway funding, loss of committee positions and various other punishments for Republicans who stood with their constituency in opposition. CAFTA won by only two votes, even with the intimidation by the president and vice president -- hardly "tremendous momentum."

Arrizurieta claims that "the majority of Florida's congressional representatives understood the long-term economic benefits of free trade in the hemisphere" and supported CAFTA. The only thing that Florida's delegation members "understood" was that if they didn't vote for CAFTA, they would have their highway budgets slashed by 70 percent, like Reps. Virgil Goode of Virginia and Walter Jones of North Carolina, both Republicans who were outspoken in their opposition.

Continuing with this altered reality, Arrizurieta writes, "The FTAA's collective economic benefit would place the hemisphere in a position to rival any multination economic partnership in the world, including the European Union, and stabilize the region politically and economically." This is true if the following is added: … stabilize the region politically and economically for the transnational corporations that want to further privatize the natural resources of these countries, override any national laws that protect the environment, labor or human rights, or in any way impede their exploitation.

CAFTA has not been passed in either the Costa Rican or Nicaraguan congress because of mass public protests. The FTAA faces not only popular opposition from the people of these countries, but opposition by the leadership of some of the largest countries in South America (Venezuela and Brazil, to name two).

In his commentary, Arrizurieta quotes figures from economist Dr. J. Antonio Villamil of Enterprise Florida. The FTAA agreement "would mean nearly 90,000 new jobs and a $3.2 billion annual payroll increase for Florida businesses. Florida's gross state product annually would grow by $13.5 billion and state and local governments would see an annual increase in fiscal revenues, totaling $157 million."

One only has to look at the NAFTA model to see how these numbers are nothing but smoke and mirrors. The Department of Agriculture estimates that Florida's share of the U.S. winter market commodities -- snap beans, sweet corn, cucumbers, eggplant, bell peppers, squash and tomatoes -- dropped 19 percent between 1993 and 1997. This decline represents a $791 million loss in sales since NAFTA went into effect. In addition, an estimated 15,700 farm employees and vegetable packing house workers lost their jobs in Florida alone.

Just 10 years ago, Florida was home to 27 juice-processing plants. There are only 18 remaining today and eight are operated by multinational corporations Cargill, Cutrale, Louis Dreyfus and Citrosuco (all huge financial supporters of both CAFTA and the FTAA). These transnational companies are also heavily invested in Brazil as well. They now handle about half of all the oranges crushed in Florida.

Can't our leadership come up with a fair trade agreement which lifts all boats, not just those of the multinational corporations?

Jeffrey Keating of Cooper City is a member of the Florida Fair Trade Coalition.