Thread: Clinching the Case Against CAFTA

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/pu ... 1559.shtml

Clinching the Case Against CAFTA
by William Norman Grigg
June 3, 2005

The Center for Security Policy, a Washington think-tank aligned with the Bush administration, admits that the pact has nothing to do with free trade.

In a May 31 White House press conference, President Bush reiterated that the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) would be a boon to the U.S. CAFTA, insisted Mr. Bush, "will open a market of 44 million consumers to our producers, to our workers, the products that our workers make, to our farmers. We'll lower barriers in key sectors like textiles, which will make American manufacturers more profitable and competitive in the global market, and keep jobs here in America."

Additionally, he continued, "There's a geopolitical, as well as economic, concern for CAFTA" – specifically, the need to "support young democracies [in the region]. And that's going to be important." Implicit in that claim is the idea that CAFTA – rather than being a "free" trade pact – is actually a disguised form of foreign aid intended to benefit the governments of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic. This in turn would mean that those governments would be exporting to the U.S., rather than importing more goods produced here.

As The New American has repeatedly pointed out, Republican proponents of CAFTA invariably recite some version of the administration’s argument that the agreement is needed to support "young democracies" in the region – without admitting what this portends for our own economic health. Confirmation of our analysis is now available in a remarkably candid pro-CAFTA essay published by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Washington-based think-tank closely aligned with the Bush administration.

In its June 2 "Decision Brief" entitled "The National Security Case for CAFTA," the Center for Security Policy dispenses altogether with the idea that the agreement has anything to do with expanding U.S. trade or enhancing our economy. "The truth of the matter is that the CAFTA region … accounts for an almost imperceptible fraction of U.S. trade," writes the CSP, conceding a point we have made on many occasions. "Most dollars going to Central America are spent on consumer goods chiefly made in Japan, Korea and China. The United States does not compete appreciably with the region’s main indigenous exports – coffee, cacao, cane sugar and banana production."

However, the impoverished region does export a huge number of illegal immigrants to the United States. And since "Washington has shown itself generally unwilling or unable to enforce existing immigration statues nor enact more effective laws and border security measures, it is in the U.S. interest to create more incentives for Central Americans to stay in their native lands."

Rather than compelling the federal government to carry out its constitutional mandate to protect our borders, continues the CSP, Washington should find some way to transfer wealth to the CAFTA governments. "CAFTA would help create jobs in the region – especially in the area’s much sought-after maquiladora assembly industry as well as future industrial development – affording many Central Americans an opportunity to stay home with their families," the group asserts.

This would mean creating another huge magnet drawing manufacturing jobs south – and further erosion of our own manufacturing base and middle class economy. But this is of little concern to the CSP, which maintains that "the consideration that should trump all others is the fact that CAFTA will contribute to America’s national security – and its defeat would significantly and adversely affect our security interests in the region and beyond."

"National security," according to the CSP, dictates that we should "stop penalizing our friends" – meaning Washington-aligned Latin American governments – "while rewarding our enemies," such as Venezuelan Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez, the emerging leader of a growing, anti-U.S. Latin American left.

But CAFTA would reward that movement in the long run by undermining our economy and accelerating the amalgamation of our nation with the region. CAFTA is just a preliminary installment in a larger plan to consolidate the hemisphere in a European Union-style economic and political bloc. The self-styled Metternichs at the CSP would have us enact CAFTA for the supposed purpose of battling Latin America’s Marxist movement – but enacting the agreement would mean dragging down our economy and eventual merger with the region’s Marxist regimes.

I guess that put the cat among the pigeons...
RR

STOP..........STOP RIGHT HERE!!

However, the impoverished region does export a huge number of illegal immigrants to the United States. And since "Washington has shown itself generally unwilling or unable to enforce existing immigration statues nor enact more effective laws and border security measures, it is in the U.S. interest to create more incentives for Central Americans to stay in their native lands."

Rather than compelling the federal government to carry out its constitutional mandate to protect our borders, continues the CSP, Washington should find some way to transfer wealth to the CAFTA governments. "CAFTA would help create jobs in the region – especially in the area’s much sought-after maquiladora assembly industry as well as future industrial development – affording many Central Americans an opportunity to stay home with their families," the group asserts.

THIS COULD BE A REAL HELP RIGHT NOW re:TROOPS ON BORDERS!!
compelling the Fed Government to cary out it's CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE to PROTECT OUR BORDERS
Out of the mouths of their own Think Tank!! POWERFUL and can be used to our advantage.

This is no coincidence, LOL. Look yesterday when Cong. King called for troops and now this! no coinkydink......someone's looking down on us and is handing us opportunities

Outstanding post, BB!!

Between this by RR

I guess that put the cat among the pigeons...

and this one from 2ndamendsis

no coinkydink

I think I've had my laugh for the day.

FINALLY, I could help make someone laugh!!
Thanx DARLENE

As The New American has repeatedly pointed out, Republican proponents of CAFTA invariably recite some version of the administration’s argument that the agreement is needed to support "young democracies" in the region

I don't give a rats tail about Central America. What does CAFTA do for us? So far, I don't see it doing anything positive for us.

Dear Friends:


There have been positive stopping results but we are not out of the woods yet on CAFTA.

This from www.stopcafta.com---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Vote on CAFTA Expected in Late June or July - AP (via Yahoo!) - May 31, 2005

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the House's chief proponent for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), says the vote on CAFTA will occur in the House in late June or July. A Democrat opponent of CAFTA estimates there are 190 Democrats and 40 Republicans who would vote against the trade pact today (218 votes are needed to defeat CAFTA), but that the margin could very well narrow as GOP leaders put pressure on the fence-sitters. (STOP CAFTA!)

June Is "Make-or-Break" Time for CAFTA - Washington Times - May 28, 2005

The Bush administration and its business allies are making a final push for congressional approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), confident they will prevail. According to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), "It looks like we can get this done, if we can at all, in June." (STOP CAFTA!)

House Leader Tells Pro-CAFTA Coalition to Lay Off Ads - The Hill - May 26, 2005

Yesterday House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told a coalition of business lobbyists in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) to refrain from running ads in congressional districts over the coming Memorial Day recess to avoid “energizing� opposition to CAFTA. Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, asserted: “We’re going to pull out all the stops on this, and, mark my words, we’re going to win this vote." (Here's a STOP CAFTA! radio ad for "energizing" CAFTA opposition forces in your area. See STOPCAFTA.com for other campaign tools.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all must keep calling Reps. and Senators over this month right up to July 4th. Howard Coble, Sue Myrick are wavering undecideds and need pressuring. Got a letter back from Senator Burr saying he OPPOSES the current CAFTA legislation (of course does that mean he is open for deals).
Senator Dole is wavering undecided and needs to hear it (she was recently visited by Trade Rep. Rob Portman and 'sweet talked' about possible textile protections). Most NC Reps. are standing solid against because NC really has felt the failure of NAFTA but Bush and others are out twisting arms and cutting deals. Let Reps. and Senators know they will lose their jobs if they go YES for CAFTA.