Compañeros listeros,
Es interesante ver que dicen los que se opusieron al CAFTA en EE.UU. Esto por cuanto, nos deja ver cuan fácil sería conservar la ICC, o lograr otro acuerdo mejor al actual. Su posición básicamente define el NO permitir la exportación de trabajo e industria de los americanos y reafirmar su política proteccionista sobre la agricultura. O sea, si negociamos otro tratado, como ilusamente nos proponen algunos, sería con una posición MAS DURA, en especial de los sindicatos gringos, que son quienes financian tanto a Obama como a Hillary Clinton. El subrayado es mío José Solano S. Cel. 887-8353 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] CAFTA: Exporting American Jobs & Industry Articles By William Norman Grigg, The New American, published on <http://www.StopCAFTA.com> www.StopCAFTA.com, April 18, 2005 "Free Trade" or Foreign Aid? Chief among the objections offered by NASDA and many other CAFTA critics is the fact that the supposed "free trade" agreement would impose what amounts to unilateral trade disarmament on U.S. agricultural producers. The six foreign nations included in the pact would be granted immediate access to U.S. food markets. However, U.S. producers would have to wait for years, or even decades, in order to be granted reciprocal access. If, as expected, the FTAA follows the CAFTA model by opening U.S. domestic markets first, with access to foreign markets coming only years later, the results for U.S. farmers would be nothing less than devastating. During the prescribed interval, Guebert observes, "nations like Brazil, Russia and India will become food exporting powerhouses to both the U.S. and the world while American farmers become calendar watchers." If the point of CAFTA is to promote free exchange of goods and services between producers and consumers, why is the pact designed to offer artificial competitive advantages to foreign food producers? Rather than promoting what could honestly be called free trade, CAFTA amounts to a foreign aid program using nonreciprocal access to U.S. markets as a roundabout subsidy for agricultural programs in foreign nations. And this is hardly the only way in which CAFTA amounts to a foreign aid scheme disguised as a "free trade" initiative. The Bush administration and its pro-CAFTA allies habitually refer to the pact as a means of promoting economic "development" and building "democratic institutions" in Central America. This refrain was featured prominently in a hastily assembled nationwide tour of ambassadors from the CAFTA nations. "Ambassadors and officials from Central America made a passionate plea in Seattle for U.S. passage of a regional trade deal they see as a vital tool to help lift their countries out of poverty," reported the February 25 Seattle Times. "While acknowledging that CAFTA isn't perfect, the officials said it is a vital tool for development and forms part of a package of government and market changes that would promote stability and democracy, and energize the economies of the Central American nations." Roxane Premont of the Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA (an ad hoc project of the John Birch Society, of which this magazine is an affiliate) attended a session of the "CAFTA Roadshow" in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, where participants preached exactly the same message. "They definitely offered the argument that CAFTA was vital as a way of promoting economic development in Central America," Mrs. Premont told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Several of the speakers emphasized the idea that we should use CAFTA as a form of foreign aid, rewarding these 'emerging democracies' in the region." It's important to recognize that economic growth is a result of production, not consumption. Thus the logic of the "trade as foreign aid" argument dictates that CAFTA is intended to promote the importation of goods from Central America, rather than the export of U.S. goods to the region. Pro-CAFTA Congressman Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) describes the region as "a potentially significant trading bloc with the United States." However, the aggregate economy of the six CAFTA nations is minuscule. "Add up the six CAFTA economies and you get a market the size of New Haven, Connecticut," points out trade analyst Alan Tonelson of the U.S. Business and Industry Council. Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Christopher Padilla insists that while the CAFTA nations are small, "they are actually very big markets for our products. In fact, we trade more with Central America than we trade with Brazil or Australia." If that claim were true, it would make CAFTA redundant assuming, once again, that promotion of free trade is the desired result. However, as Tonelson writes, "U.S. exports to the CAFTA [nations] are dominated by what might be called 'turnaround exports.' That is to say, exports that are not final products which are actually consumed abroad, but parts and components of final products that are assembled or further processed abroad, and then shipped right back for consumption in the United States. As a result, they don't service net new demand in foreign markets which eventually would require domestic employers to expand production, hire new workers, and boost wages. They service the same old demand in the same old market America's." Put in the simplest terms, the CAFTA nations are an economically stagnant population of 46 million people, more than half of whom live below the poverty level (as defined by their standard of living, not ours). Costa Rica, the wealthiest CAFTA nation, has a per-capita GDP of $9,000 roughly one-quarter of ours. Every nation other than Costa Rica displays net emigration, meaning that their citizens are leaving home in search of economic opportunity. Is this the raw material of a potentially lucrative U.S. export market or a low-wage population that will act as a magnet for further outsourcing of our embattled manufacturing sector? Tonelson concludes that CAFTA is a "classic outsourcing agreement" an arrangement in which the only significant U.S. export would be manufacturing jobs to poor, low-wage nations. According to CAFTA supporters, this is precisely why it's important to ratify the accord. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) insists that CAFTA is a proper reward to Central American nations that "have emerged from years of war and dictatorial rule to make major steps toward promoting democracy and human rights," reported the AP. "Kicking them down the ladder would be a major mistake," insisted the congressman. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) makes a similar point, stating that his "primary" reason for supporting CAFTA is his belief that the agreement would "spur U.S. investment and promote economic development in the region." Of course, Reps. Brady and Flake, like scores of other congressmen who express support for CAFTA, were elected to represent the interests of U.S. citizens, not the interests of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, or the Dominican Republic. Nor is promoting "economic development" in foreign lands at the expense of American prosperity among Congress's constitutional responsibilities a fact that voters should impress on the minds of their representatives before CAFTA is brought to a vote. Moreover, even if the purpose were to help poor peoples in foreign lands improve their standards of living, the long-term solution can only be found in political and economic freedom, not in pulling the U.S. down.
_______________________________________________ Blog: http://www.pln.or.cr/blog lista de correos [email protected] Para desinscribirse o cambiar su configuración http://lista.pln.or.cr/listinfo.cgi/lista-pln.or.cr
