CAFTA after NAFTA

Haiti, CAFTA, Off-Shore Banking, Security Issues Discussed at Meetings between Members of U.S. Congressional Delegation, President of Dominican Republic, Prime Minister of Antigua; Photo Available

1/18/2005 7:31:00 PM


----------------------------------------------------------------------
To: National and International desks

Contact: Ramon Zertuche of the Inter-American Economic Council, 202-548-0400; e-mail: iaec@inter-american.org Web: http://www.inter-american.org

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- From Jan. 12-16, the Inter-American Economic Council organized the largest bipartisan U.S. Congressional delegation in history to the Dominican Republic and Antigua.

During their visit to the Dominican Republic the 11 Members of Congress, along with Council President Barry Featherman, participated in a wide ranging discussion with President Leonel Fernandez and Foreign Minister Carlos Morales at the Presidential Palace in Santo Domingo.

In welcoming the Members of Congress, several of whom represent New York, President Fernandez noted that because of the large Dominican Population in New York, many Dominicans think of New York as their second largest city. On the issue of Haiti, President Fernandez expressed the view that his government would do all in its power to promote stability and prosperity in its neighbor to the west. The 11 Members of Congress (two of whom represent districts in Florida) talked about their concerns for Haitian refugees, regional economic and political stability and the restoration of democracy in Haiti. President Fernandez also used the opportunity to make the case for the approval of the CAFTA/Dominican Republic Trade Agreement by the United States Congress. The President thanked the Members of Congress for the $100 million in humanitarian aid to the Hurricane-battered region.

While in Santo Domingo, the Members of Congress also received a briefing from U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic Hans Hertell on U.S./Dominican Republic Relations under the new government. The Members of Congress later participated in a press conference with Ambassador Hertell.

Following their meetings in Santo Domingo, the Members of Congress visited the Eastern provinces of the country that had been badly damaged by Hurricane Jeanne.

On their return to Washington, the Members of Congress stopped off in Antigua to visit the Antigua Air Station, the principal regional United States Military Missile Tracking Station which employs over 150 people and includes maintenance, supply and support operations for tracking missiles. They also toured a U.S. Operated Medical School.

The delegation held a half day of talks at the Royal Antiguan Hotel Conference Center with the new Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Winston Baldwin Spencer. Items on the Agenda included offshore financial services, the patriot act, regional trade and investment and the WTO Ruling in the Internet Gaming Dispute.

In commenting on the visit, Council President Barry Featherman stated that the meeting with President Fernandez served to strengthen the relationship between the United States and the Dominican Republic by providing an opportunity for the new government to share its views with Members of the United States House of Representatives Congressional Caribbean Caucus on Haiti, Trade, Education, Security and Technology issues. Similarly, the meetings with Prime Minister Spencer provided the Members of Congress the opportunity to learn about the new government's plans and programs especially with the promotion of more regional investment. This visit underwritten by the Inter-American Economic Council also served to identify critical issues in Dominican Republic /US Relations and Antigua and Barbuda/U.S. relations.

About the Inter-American Economic Council and the Congressional Caribbean Caucus

The Council's goal is to work with sub-regional groups within Latin America including the Andean Initiative, the Central America and the Caribbean Initiative to facilitate understanding and greater sensitivity and appreciation of specific regional issues. The primary mission of the Congressional Caribbean Caucus is to strengthen relations with the Countries of the Caribbean by providing an ongoing forum for continuous dialogue between the U.S. Congress and the Caribbean Political Leadership. The Council has cooperative agreements with the Organization of American States signed by the Council President with Dr. Cesar Gaviria in June of 2000 and the Caribbean Development Bank signed by President Featherman with Dr. Compton Bourne last December. The Council is chaired by Senator Christopher Thomas of Trinidad and Tobago, the former Assistant Secretary General of the Organization of American States.


Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer, center, meets with Members of the U.S. Congress during the Government Business Roundtable Sponsored by the Inter-American Economic Council, St. John's Antigua, Saturday January 15, 2005. (IAEC via U.S. Newswire)


President Leonel Fernandez, center, of the Dominican Republic flanked by members of the visiting United States Congressional Delegation at the Presidential Palace, Santo Domingo Thursday January 13, 2005 (IAEC via U.S. Newswire)

http://www.usnewswire.com /

But I believe it's a good idea. So long as there are standards for labor and the environment, we need to work on building bridges to other countries, not walls.

The last president to subscribe to a protectionist theory was Hoover with the Smoot-Hawley Act. That act wound up increasing the damage from the Depression.

Just my 2 cents.

...the majority of people are probably opposed to this. The idea of "building bridges not walls" is appealing rhetoric but that is not what these multilateral trade agreements are for. They exist mainly to transfer of power from national governments to multinational corporations. Multinationals want a loose and predictible trade and regulatory environment in which to operate so that their globe-straddling investments are better protected against unpredictable trends in national politics (whatever that nation might be).

Concerning the "free trade vs. protectionist" debate, this is the globalist's preferred way to speak of trade issues, and the Smoot-Hawley act is their favorite whipping boy. There is considerable uncertainty over whether the act had anything significant to do with the Depression, but regardless it should be recognized that the United States had operated with higher tariffs than under Smoot-Hawley through most of the 19th and early 20th century (until the introduction of the income tax in the 1910's to raise money for WWI). The idea that tariffs=depression is nonsense, all of the world's richest economies have made ample use tariffs and other trade barriers during their economic history.

First off, I didn't say that a majority of citizens are opposed to trade. I meant that most DUers are opposed to it. From what I've seen, public opinion on trade is 50/50, and many people say they would support it more if labor and environmental safeguards were included in the agreements (something that I definetly support).

Second, protectionist measures are purely political moves that end up hurting the economy and the people. Take steel tariffs, for instance. They might save a few jobs in Pennsylvania, but they'll severely injure all industries that rely on steel, i.e. construction. Or how about the pharmaceutical industry? I, along with many other people, feel that the price of perscription drugs are way too high; and yet, the drug industry remains one of our most protected industries.

Third, the world is much smaller than it was 50 years ago thanks to advances in transportation and technology. Globalization is happening whether you like it or not. What we can do is make sure that these multinational corporations do not use child labor or destroy the environment.

"First off, I didn't say that a majority of citizens are opposed to trade. I meant that most DUers are opposed to it.From what I've seen, public opinion on trade is 50/50, and many people say they would support it more if labor and environmental safeguards were included in the agreements (something that I definetly support)."

Granted. I thought you meant DUers.


"Second, protectionist measures are purely political moves that end up hurting the economy and the people. Take steel tariffs, for instance. They might save a few jobs in Pennsylvania, but they'll severely injure all industries that rely on steel, i.e. construction. Or how about the pharmaceutical industry? I, along with many other people, feel that the price of perscription drugs are way too high; and yet, the drug industry remains one of our most protected industries."

Protectionist measures certainly can be politically motivated -- Bush was certainly motivated by political considerations with the steel tariffs. Yet this is a case where Bush did the right thing (almost, he actually lifted the tariffs too quickly) for the wrong reason. For the last few decades our steel-makers have been hammered by international competition by makers whose governments have offered much more support (subsidies, support for consolidation, etc.) than we have, and as a result our steel firms were (and still are) in a weakened state. The tariffs are far from the comprehensive cure that is needed, but the alternative of doing nothing would be the collapse of the American steel industry. The costs to the construction and perhaps more importantly the automobile industry are obviously undesirable but these industries are on stronger footing -- you must treat the patient on the verge of death even if it means the others have to wait for their medicine. Carrying the medical analogy a little further, ideally you would like to use a bit more preventive medicine in the form of subsidies, support for further consolidation, etc. before the problem gets to that point.

Concerning pharmaceuticals, that's a more complicated issue. The industry is certainly protected and subsidized through the roof, but this is mostly to increase profits and shareholder returns not to protect the industry from international competition. The fact is that the U.S. actually runs a significant trade deficit in pharmaceuticals.


"Third, the world is much smaller than it was 50 years ago thanks to advances in transportation and technology. Globalization is happening whether you like it or not. What we can do is make sure that these multinational corporations do not use child labor or destroy the environment."

The question to ask is whether advances in transportation and technology make it inevitible that power will shift from national governments to MNC's -- that is does "liberalization" follow from "globalization"? It is useful for propaganda purposes to conflate the two, but they are not the same thing.

Trading Freedom: the secret life of the FTAA
Video by indymedia ftaa video workgroup
Produced October 2002, 56 minutes

Offers an explanation of what the FTAA is, what it will mean, and how people across the Americas are resisting it.

DOWNLOAD 600MB
http://frazer.rice.edu/~tish/video.mov

---
Many more videos avail-
http://mysite.verizon.net/res7dhyg/id3.html