... 21235/9973

CAFTA to Screw Central America

By Nathan Newman | bio

Why didn't the New York Times write this story BEFORE the debate on CAFTA?:

Mr. Bush argues that the deal will shore up political stability in the region and reduce a $2.3 billion deficit with the countries involved. But negotiators for the region did not have enough leverage to pry many concessions from the United States, critics and even some supporters said.

A high-ranking Costa Rican official, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of offending his American counterparts, said the implicit threat was that temporary trade preferences enjoyed under old agreements would not be renewed. Central American countries had to get on board with the new pact or risk watching their exports dwindle.

So CAFTA was not an improvement on the status quo for these countries but was passed based on threats by Bush of punishment if it wasn't approved, the same kinds of threats applied domestically against wavering Congressmen.

Aug 20, 2005 -- 09:23:05 PM EST
And both small farmers and unions are protesting the likely effects, hoping to block the agreement in their parliaments:

If the pact is approved, small farmers like Mr. Elizondo say they will be wiped out...Labor leaders threaten strikes and scream that the treaty will force public-sector layoffs and drive up health care costs. Flower growers say they will go out of business without it.

What's amazing is that CAFTA was pushed without anyone clearly saying who would benefit. Because the only clear winner are the pharmaceutical companies who will be able to jack up drug prices under the new intellectual property rules Central American countries must now adopt per the agreement.

Read the whole article-- and anyone who supported the agreement, I've got to ask them why?

CAFTA to Screw Central America | 1 comment (1 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: CAFTA to Screw Central America (3.00 / 0) (#1)
by mahoodlum on Aug 20, 2005 -- 10:01:47 PM EST

Interestingly enough me and my colleagues were discussing the impacts of CAFTA, but the fact that they forced in through each country by threatening to eliminate individual trade agreements is even worse. This goes to show, that the corporations involved saw the individual agreements as temporary and CAFTA as permament which allows them to outsource completely as well as benefit in copyrights and patents that exist in the US. I keep seeing the same thing, protection of property to only those in the US that have the money to afford the property, the lawyer to defend the court case, the documents to prove first discovery and nothing is done for the better good, nothing to help all. This is so frustrating, I am so sick of the way corporations rule this country. I am really sick of the practice of puch a policy through and ask questions later. Sounds like the same problems corporations have with products that fail push it to the market if it fails ask questions later, seems like the same practive of Vioxx.