http://www.newswithviews.com/Lamb/henry94.htm CAFTA, NAFTA AND THE WTO By Henry Lamb July 31, 2005 NewsWithViews.com These acronyms, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO, are a weird blend of alphabet soup that provides nourishment for almost all participants - except the United States. The people who lost their jobs when 354 textile plants closed, just since 1997, are not nourished by this alphabet soup. The people in Asian sweat shops are. The farmers in Iowa, and across the country, whose exports are declining, are not nourished by this alphabet soup. Non-American farmers are. As our trade deficit worsens, our trading partners get healthier, while Americans suffer. These trade agreements were sold to Congress, and to the American people, as "Free Trade" agreements. Nothing could be further from the truth. These agreements are actually mountains of regulations, developed and enforced by unelected bureaucrats. They are, in fact, agreements by participating nations, to allow unelected bureaucrats to manage trade among the participants. These trade agreements have extraordinary legal power. The decisions of an appointed international tribunal have the power to force participating nations to conform their laws to comply with the tribunal's decisions - or face economic penalties. Since these trade agreements are international in nature, and have the force of law, they are actually treaties, which require a super-majority in the Senate for ratification. By calling them "trade agreements," instead of the treaties they are, only a simple majority is needed for passage. After 10 years of watching plant closings and swelling trade deficits, the administration. and many in Congress, are pushing another Central American Free Trade Agreement - CAFTA. The reasons to stay out of this entanglement go far beyond the adverse economic impacts. This agreement seeks to create a trade-governing mechanism in the western hemisphere similar to the European Common Market, and its subsequent European Union. The sales pitch in the U.S. claims the agreement will open new markets for U.S. products. In reality, it opens new opportunities for American industry to move to countries where labor costs are a fraction of U.S. labor costs, and where environmental and regulatory compliance costs are almost non-existent. These agreements open U.S. markets to products produced without the safety and environmental standards, and the attendant costs, that U.S. products must include. That's why an America flag made in America costs twice as much as a flag made in Mexico, or China. That's why the Florida tomato industry evaporated when NAFTA went into force. That's why the American economy is losing its capacity to produce the products Americans need. Each new agreement makes the U.S. more and more dependent upon other nations for the products it requires. Once the capacity to produce is lost, the possibility of rebuilding that capacity is remote. Consider what it would take to rebuild the steel industry to the level that it could supply American demand. Not only is the cost prohibitive, but the regulatory climate is also prohibitive. It is the regulatory climate that has prevented the energy industry from keeping up with demand. That's why our dependence on foreign sources of energy has continued to rise, from decade to decade. Congress, and the American people, should realize that the ultimate goal of these trade agreements has nothing to do with what is best for the United States, or its people. It has everything to do with benefitting everyone else. Congress, and the American people, should realize that the prosperity this nation has built is the result of self-reliance, which we should not allow to be traded away. Finally, there is the matter of national sovereignty. Proponents of these trade agreements praise the dispute resolution process that forces compliance by all participants. They claim this provides a degree of predictability on which business can depend. It also forces Americans to submit to a force of law that was not enacted by elected representatives. This grinds underfoot the whole concept of "...government empowered by the consent of the governed." When Americans are forced to comply with a ruling of an appointed international tribunal, the idea of national sovereignty goes out the window. This, of course, is prerequisite to the emergence of global governance. NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO are more than nourishment for the one-worlders. They are vitamin-packed, steroid-enriched, injections of global governance. © 2005 Henry Lamb - All Rights Reserved Henry Lamb is the founding Chairman of Sovereignty International (1996), and the founding ECO of the Environmental Conservation Organization (1988). He is publisher of eco-logic Powerhouse, a widely read on-line, and print magazine. His columns are frequently translated into Spanish and published throughout Central and South America, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. He has attended United Nations meetings around the world, is a frequent speaker at conferences and workshops across the country, and is a regular guest on dozens of talk radio programs. He has provided testimony for the U.S. Congress, as well as State Legislatures, and has served as a consultant to FOX News on U.N. affairs. For eight years, he was CEO of a national trade association for contractors, headquartered in Chicago, coming to that position from CEO of a private construction company specializing in erosion control and water management structures. His background includes teaching at the secondary school level, and serving four years as a legislative analyst for a county government in Florida. E-Mail: henry@freedom.org
I think 'america' shafted the world for quite some time.. equaling the balance of power and jobs around the world is good.. I did not think you liked american imperialism ?.
What does it have to do with imperialism? Do you even know what imperialism is? And there is no such thing as "American imperialism," since the people running this country have no allegience to its people and no regard to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. These people are working for an elite global crime syndicate, aimed at attaining a totalitarian One World Government. There is only Elite imperialism. Not American imperialism. Not British imperialism. Not Israeli imperialism. CAFTA is all about the Power-Elite superceding national law and destroying national sovereignty, while ruining average people's lives to meet their own ends. In reality, this isn't benefiting anyone half as much as it is the very rich and powerful who are in control of it. But it certainly isn't benefiting the people of this country, who are losing jobs left and right to NAFTA -- and soon, CAFTA. It's going to put more people out of work, and more farmers and small businesses out of business. Eventually, it's going to have a devastating impact on the US (hence, world) economy. But it was all set up to be this way. The re-distribution of wealth is all part of the globalists' socialist plan for a One World Government, and these "free trade" agreements play right into the globalists' hands. The only people who really stand to gain from these so-called "free trade" agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA, are the major corporations and banks (and the Elites who head them). It's apparent that our elected officials do not care about this country and its people, or else they would have never allowed such a bill to pass. But, when you look at the people within our government - many of whom are staunch supporters of globalism and One World Government - it isn't so hard to understand that these people have an agenda that benefits anyone but the people.
"There is only Elite imperialism. Not American imperialism." Very cool. I hadn't quite thought of it like that...but at the same time...the imperialism thus far IS led by the U.S. Remember, the one world project has quite some time before it comes to fruition. I mean...not a lot of time, certainly within our natural lifetimes, but still leaving plenty of time to foment a radical response to resist. Luckily, it's been in the works for more than half a decade.
Superficially, yes, it is being lead by the US -- militarily speaking, anyway. But it would be naive to believe that this has all been planned by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld alone. These are only front men for people much more powerful than them. The only thing is that you don't hear about "them" in the media, making "them" seem almost non-existent to the average person. If you follow the money, as always, it leads to the major multinational corporations, the military-industrial complex and the central banks. Their controllers, via their minions, operate through groups such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which operate on behalf of the Power-Elite.
A little economics goes a long way. Trade deficits are not bad. Exporting is not "winning" and importing is not "losing". Some of the worst performing large economies (Germany, Japan) have large trade surpluses. This is basic economics. Or is Rat suggesting America stop exporting too?
So, tell me, what good has NAFTA done for the American worker? What good has it done for the common man? And how does the subversion of American sovereignty help Americans? It doesn't, unless you're a globalist.
NAFTA was good for the economy. Looking at the US economy since 1993 you would be hard pressed to say that it has been anything other than strong. I don't consider free trade agreements which we can voluntarily opt out of to be a loss of sovereignty. Unless you are a purist that thinks any international agreements are evil, then what's the big deal? We signed an agreement. If we longer want it, we withdraw. Free trade is for capitalists. The reason you are opposed to free trade is because you are opposed to capitalism.
I am against crony capitalism which benefits only the very rich and powerful. I am staunchly pro-free market, but there is no such thing as "free market" anymore. Are you trying to say that real conservatives like Henry Lamb, and semi-real conservatives like Pat Buchanan - both of whom oppose these so-called "free trade" agreements - are anti-capitalists?
Yes, Lamb and Buchanan and you are all anti-capitalists. Conservatives have never been reliable supporters of free trade and more than they have been reliable supporters of any other conservative ideological principle. Free trade is a fundamental principle of capitalism, to say you are "staunchly" pro free trade and then turn around and oppose it is ridiculous. What is you definition of stanchly? Never? Either support capitalism or stop calling yourself a capitalist. Every tired argument against the existence of free trade has parallels 10, 20, 50, or 100 or more years ago. Every generation has its protectionist scares, whether it is Japanese auto makers or some other bogeyman (remember when "if these trends continue, Japan will control America", circa 1985?). What is the difference with arguments against technological change? 19th century Luddites who said that automatic looms, which left hand spinners unemployed, would result in economic doom? The argument is nearly identical to the one used against allowing imports from Mexico.
the best thing to come out of a south american free trade treaty is this: http://www.cutelatinboys.com/
on a serious note, however, there is strong opposition to cafta from the farmers of nicaragua who see the treaty as selling out the country's campesinos and small business ppl. in exchcnge for signing the treaty the nicaraguan govt hopes it will attract new textile industries but at the cost of running small farmers out of business who can't compete with us-subsidised imports. the social costs of the treaty are also high, as this article describes: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2005/7/24/145554/061
Banned? I wish. No, I was on holiday for a week, without internet access! Eccentric is one thing; even stupidity I can handle, but rat clearly knows that this stuff is BS - he's just a very very good troll. And I can't resist a good troll
