Why CAFTA should not be passed
Good Reasons To Reject CAFTA
The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 07-18-05 | Bill Graves
Posted on 07/18/2005 3:01:46 PM PDT by Osage Orange
Good reasons to reject CAFTA
By Bill Graves
Congress is debating the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), also known as son of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). America presumably benefits from "free" trade, and CAFTA allegedly will open up billions in trade between the United States and Central America. However, here's the other side of the story.
With CAFTA, as with its membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, America will surrender more of its sovereignty as a nation and its states' rights to outside tribunals. For example, California's legislature passed a bill in 2004 to dispose of millions of scrap tires by recycling them into asphalt for road construction. When Mexican rubber producers claimed the bill violated NAFTA, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, citing NAFTA supremacy, vetoed the bill.
U.S. courts were overruled by a NAFTA tribunal in a dispute between Canadian and American firms. Afterward, a NAFTA tribunal judge said, "If Congress had known that there was anything like this in NAFTA, they never would have voted for it." He shouldn't be so sure. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Warr Acres, who voted for NAFTA, believes that "U.S. sovereignty is less important than fostering interdependence and cooperation among nations with international bodies and tribunals."
Since NAFTA's passage, the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico was replaced by a trade deficit above $50 billion annually and a cumulative trade deficit exceeding $300 billion. The trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size. Moreover, 500,000 illegal immigrants annually make it across the border to take up American residence and enjoy the numerous social programs provided by overtaxed Americans. That will increase under CAFTA.
John Sweeney, AFL-CIO president, is firmly opposed to CAFTA because it is an extension of NAFTA. He said, "NAFTA has cost U.S. workers 900,000 jobs and job opportunities." Meanwhile, NAFTA didn't help Mexican workers as its supporters predicted, but Mexico's real wages fell and the number of poor increased.
Pat Buchanan said that with CAFTA, in return "for access to our market, we get access to six Central American markets with a total economy the size of" that of New Haven, Conn. Thus, about the only things the United States will be exporting to Central America are jobs, industry and capital as more factories seek to escape the U.S. tax and regulatory burden. In exchange, the United States will get even more illegal immigrants who are greatly attracted to the U.S. welfare state.
Despite all the talk about free trade, CAFTA's real purpose is not free trade. On May 31, President Bush said there is a "geopolitical, as well as economic, concern for CAFTA" in order to "support young democracies" in the region.
The columnist Charles Krauthammer said CAFTA gives America a chance to pull millions "out of poverty." Since when is it Congress' job to get non-Americans out of poverty? CAFTA, rather than being a "free trade" pact, is a disguised form of foreign aid.
Oklahomans should urge their congressmen to put not Central America's, but America's, economy first and reject the globaloney of CAFTA.
Graves is an Oklahoma City lawyer and former state representative.
CAFTA undermines immigration laws
By: TOM TANCREDO - Commentary
Congress will soon take up the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which many see as an extension of NAFTA and a precursor to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas that would convert all of North and South America into one integrated market.
Opinions about CAFTA's impact on the regional economy vary widely among members of Congress based largely on what the agreement will do for their constituents. But in the rush to highlight who wins and who loses when these trade barriers come down, almost everyone has overlooked the troubling non-trade provisions that are tucked into the voluminous document.
CAFTA would do more than just phase out tariffs and open new markets ---- a lot more. For example, buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of "cross-border trade in services." This definition would give people in Central American nations a de facto right to work in the United States. CAFTA is more than a trade agreement about sugar and bananas. It is a thinly disguised immigration accord.
The immigration provisions are cloaked as "service agreements" in the document that have become standard fare in most trade agreements.
One article of CAFTA reads, "Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service ... by a national of a party in the territory of another party." CAFTA goes on to stipulate that member nations take care to ensure that local and national "measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services," and to guarantee that our domestic laws are "not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service."
What those provisions mean is that a foreign company would be empowered under CAFTA to challenge the validity of our immigration laws. If an international tribunal rules against us, Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws or face international trade sanctions. These tribunals have the authority to rule that U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements, or even licensing requirements and zoning rules are "unnecessary burdens to trade" that act as "restrictions on the supply of a service."
This hidden legislation to open the U.S. border is only the beginning.
The chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees most international trade matters, believes that these kinds of immigration provisions are fair game for future trade deals as well.
If CAFTA were really just about trade, the agreement would be little more than a few pages long, declaring that tariff treatment for U.S. and Central American goods will be on a reciprocal basis. But it isn't. In reality, CAFTA is about expanding a growing body of international law that supersedes our own.
If CAFTA is approved, Congress' "exclusive" authority to regulate immigration policy will be subjugated to the whim of international tribunals and trade panels ---- in much the same way that Congress' once supreme constitutional authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations," has already been largely ceded to the WTO.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is a member of the House International Relations Committee.
[ EXCERPTS FROM THE CAFTA AGREEMENT ]
CAFTA’s role as steppingstone to hemispheric integration and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). “[The governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States of America] resolved to: … CONTRIBUTE to hemispheric integration and provide an impetus toward establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas.” (CAFTA Agreement, Preamble)
CAFTA’s subservience to the World Trade Organization (WTO). “[The governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States of America] resolved to: … BUILD on their respective rights and obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization…. The Parties to this Agreement, consistent with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 [WTO] and Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services [WTO], hereby establish a free trade area…. The Parties affirm their existing rights and obligations with respect to each other under the WTO Agreement….” (CAFTA Agreement, Preamble and Chapter 1)
Loss of U.S. independence to the supranational CAFTA Free Trade Commission. “The Parties hereby establish the Free Trade Commission, comprising cabinet-level representatives of the Parties…. The Commission shall: (a) supervise the implementation of this Agreement; (b) oversee the further elaboration of this Agreement; (c) seek to resolve disputes that may arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement; (d) supervise the work of all committees and working groups established under this Agreement; and (e) consider any other matter that may affect the operation of this Agreement.” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 19)
Loss of U.S. independence to World Bank and United Nations tribunals under CAFTA. “Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim … (a) under the ICSID Convention [World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)] and the ICSID Rules of Procedures for Arbitration Proceedings, provided that both the respondent and the Party of the claimant are parties to the ICSID Convention; (b) under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, provided that either the respondent or the Party of the claimant is a party to the ICSID Convention; or (c) under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules [United Nations Commission on International Trade Law arbitration rules].” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 10) “A Party shall be deemed to be in compliance … if it is a party to and is in compliance with the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards….” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 20)
Loss of independence of U.S. federal, state, and local governments to regulate service professions and businesses to CAFTA’s “Cross-Border Trade in Services” provisions. “Cross-Border Trade in Services … applies to measures adopted or maintained by a Party affecting cross-border trade in services by service suppliers of another Party. Such measures include measures affecting: (a) the production, distribution, marketing, sale, and delivery of a service; (b) the purchase or use of, or payment for, a service; (c) the access to and use of distribution, transport, or telecommunications networks and services in connection with the supply of a service; (d) the presence in its territory of a service supplier of another Party; and (e) the provision of a bond or other form of financial security as a condition for the supply of a service…. For purposes of this Chapter, “measures adopted or maintained by a Party” means measures adopted or maintained by: (a) central, regional, or local governments and authorities; and (b) non governmental bodies in the exercise of powers delegated by central, regional, or local governments or authorities…. National Treatment 1. Each Party shall accord to service suppliers of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own service suppliers. 2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that regional level of government to service suppliers of the Party of which it forms a part…. Most-Favored-Nation Treatment Each Party shall accord to service suppliers of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to service suppliers of any other Party or a non-Party…. Local Presence No Party may require a service supplier of another Party to establish or maintain a representative office or any form of enterprise, or to be resident, in its territory as a condition for the cross-border supply of a service.” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 11)
[SO WHO DOES CAFTA REALLY FAVOR AND LIMIT IN ITS BIAS SETUP?]
The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 07-18-05 | Bill Graves
Posted on 07/18/2005 3:01:46 PM PDT by Osage Orange
Good reasons to reject CAFTA
By Bill Graves
Congress is debating the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), also known as son of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). America presumably benefits from "free" trade, and CAFTA allegedly will open up billions in trade between the United States and Central America. However, here's the other side of the story.
With CAFTA, as with its membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, America will surrender more of its sovereignty as a nation and its states' rights to outside tribunals. For example, California's legislature passed a bill in 2004 to dispose of millions of scrap tires by recycling them into asphalt for road construction. When Mexican rubber producers claimed the bill violated NAFTA, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, citing NAFTA supremacy, vetoed the bill.
U.S. courts were overruled by a NAFTA tribunal in a dispute between Canadian and American firms. Afterward, a NAFTA tribunal judge said, "If Congress had known that there was anything like this in NAFTA, they never would have voted for it." He shouldn't be so sure. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Warr Acres, who voted for NAFTA, believes that "U.S. sovereignty is less important than fostering interdependence and cooperation among nations with international bodies and tribunals."
Since NAFTA's passage, the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico was replaced by a trade deficit above $50 billion annually and a cumulative trade deficit exceeding $300 billion. The trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size. Moreover, 500,000 illegal immigrants annually make it across the border to take up American residence and enjoy the numerous social programs provided by overtaxed Americans. That will increase under CAFTA.
John Sweeney, AFL-CIO president, is firmly opposed to CAFTA because it is an extension of NAFTA. He said, "NAFTA has cost U.S. workers 900,000 jobs and job opportunities." Meanwhile, NAFTA didn't help Mexican workers as its supporters predicted, but Mexico's real wages fell and the number of poor increased.
Pat Buchanan said that with CAFTA, in return "for access to our market, we get access to six Central American markets with a total economy the size of" that of New Haven, Conn. Thus, about the only things the United States will be exporting to Central America are jobs, industry and capital as more factories seek to escape the U.S. tax and regulatory burden. In exchange, the United States will get even more illegal immigrants who are greatly attracted to the U.S. welfare state.
Despite all the talk about free trade, CAFTA's real purpose is not free trade. On May 31, President Bush said there is a "geopolitical, as well as economic, concern for CAFTA" in order to "support young democracies" in the region.
The columnist Charles Krauthammer said CAFTA gives America a chance to pull millions "out of poverty." Since when is it Congress' job to get non-Americans out of poverty? CAFTA, rather than being a "free trade" pact, is a disguised form of foreign aid.
Oklahomans should urge their congressmen to put not Central America's, but America's, economy first and reject the globaloney of CAFTA.
Graves is an Oklahoma City lawyer and former state representative.
CAFTA undermines immigration laws
By: TOM TANCREDO - Commentary
Congress will soon take up the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which many see as an extension of NAFTA and a precursor to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas that would convert all of North and South America into one integrated market.
Opinions about CAFTA's impact on the regional economy vary widely among members of Congress based largely on what the agreement will do for their constituents. But in the rush to highlight who wins and who loses when these trade barriers come down, almost everyone has overlooked the troubling non-trade provisions that are tucked into the voluminous document.
CAFTA would do more than just phase out tariffs and open new markets ---- a lot more. For example, buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of "cross-border trade in services." This definition would give people in Central American nations a de facto right to work in the United States. CAFTA is more than a trade agreement about sugar and bananas. It is a thinly disguised immigration accord.
The immigration provisions are cloaked as "service agreements" in the document that have become standard fare in most trade agreements.
One article of CAFTA reads, "Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service ... by a national of a party in the territory of another party." CAFTA goes on to stipulate that member nations take care to ensure that local and national "measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services," and to guarantee that our domestic laws are "not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service."
What those provisions mean is that a foreign company would be empowered under CAFTA to challenge the validity of our immigration laws. If an international tribunal rules against us, Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws or face international trade sanctions. These tribunals have the authority to rule that U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements, or even licensing requirements and zoning rules are "unnecessary burdens to trade" that act as "restrictions on the supply of a service."
This hidden legislation to open the U.S. border is only the beginning.
The chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees most international trade matters, believes that these kinds of immigration provisions are fair game for future trade deals as well.
If CAFTA were really just about trade, the agreement would be little more than a few pages long, declaring that tariff treatment for U.S. and Central American goods will be on a reciprocal basis. But it isn't. In reality, CAFTA is about expanding a growing body of international law that supersedes our own.
If CAFTA is approved, Congress' "exclusive" authority to regulate immigration policy will be subjugated to the whim of international tribunals and trade panels ---- in much the same way that Congress' once supreme constitutional authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations," has already been largely ceded to the WTO.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is a member of the House International Relations Committee.
[ EXCERPTS FROM THE CAFTA AGREEMENT ]
CAFTA’s role as steppingstone to hemispheric integration and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). “[The governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States of America] resolved to: … CONTRIBUTE to hemispheric integration and provide an impetus toward establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas.” (CAFTA Agreement, Preamble)
CAFTA’s subservience to the World Trade Organization (WTO). “[The governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States of America] resolved to: … BUILD on their respective rights and obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization…. The Parties to this Agreement, consistent with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 [WTO] and Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services [WTO], hereby establish a free trade area…. The Parties affirm their existing rights and obligations with respect to each other under the WTO Agreement….” (CAFTA Agreement, Preamble and Chapter 1)
Loss of U.S. independence to the supranational CAFTA Free Trade Commission. “The Parties hereby establish the Free Trade Commission, comprising cabinet-level representatives of the Parties…. The Commission shall: (a) supervise the implementation of this Agreement; (b) oversee the further elaboration of this Agreement; (c) seek to resolve disputes that may arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement; (d) supervise the work of all committees and working groups established under this Agreement; and (e) consider any other matter that may affect the operation of this Agreement.” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 19)
Loss of U.S. independence to World Bank and United Nations tribunals under CAFTA. “Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim … (a) under the ICSID Convention [World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)] and the ICSID Rules of Procedures for Arbitration Proceedings, provided that both the respondent and the Party of the claimant are parties to the ICSID Convention; (b) under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, provided that either the respondent or the Party of the claimant is a party to the ICSID Convention; or (c) under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules [United Nations Commission on International Trade Law arbitration rules].” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 10) “A Party shall be deemed to be in compliance … if it is a party to and is in compliance with the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards….” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 20)
Loss of independence of U.S. federal, state, and local governments to regulate service professions and businesses to CAFTA’s “Cross-Border Trade in Services” provisions. “Cross-Border Trade in Services … applies to measures adopted or maintained by a Party affecting cross-border trade in services by service suppliers of another Party. Such measures include measures affecting: (a) the production, distribution, marketing, sale, and delivery of a service; (b) the purchase or use of, or payment for, a service; (c) the access to and use of distribution, transport, or telecommunications networks and services in connection with the supply of a service; (d) the presence in its territory of a service supplier of another Party; and (e) the provision of a bond or other form of financial security as a condition for the supply of a service…. For purposes of this Chapter, “measures adopted or maintained by a Party” means measures adopted or maintained by: (a) central, regional, or local governments and authorities; and (b) non governmental bodies in the exercise of powers delegated by central, regional, or local governments or authorities…. National Treatment 1. Each Party shall accord to service suppliers of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own service suppliers. 2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that regional level of government to service suppliers of the Party of which it forms a part…. Most-Favored-Nation Treatment Each Party shall accord to service suppliers of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to service suppliers of any other Party or a non-Party…. Local Presence No Party may require a service supplier of another Party to establish or maintain a representative office or any form of enterprise, or to be resident, in its territory as a condition for the cross-border supply of a service.” (CAFTA Agreement, Chapter 11)
[SO WHO DOES CAFTA REALLY FAVOR AND LIMIT IN ITS BIAS SETUP?]
