U.S. Pushing for Trade Pact : Deal Would Expand NAFTA Through Central Amer

[acmavm]

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 10, 2003; Page E01

<snip>

The Bush administration is determined by week's end to conclude an agreement to extend the North American free-trade zone throughout Central America, despite a wave of protectionist sentiment cresting over Washington.

<snip>

"Is there a backlash in the Senate and House right now? Oh yeah," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), whose state textile economy has been hemorrhaging jobs. "It's going to be a tough sell to get any trade agreement at a time when our manufacturing is in decline, and if past performance is any indication, there's no way."

-MORE-

*********************************************************************
Geez, maybe we can just ship ALL jobs out of this country and get it over with.

[Just Me]

1. Foreign slave labor makes US CEOs richer,...

,...and benefits all US unemployed/poor with cheaper products they have no money to buy,...isn't that what we all want *snicker* *ugh*,...

[htuttle]

2. The FTAA proposals went over like a stale fart in Miami

It wasn't merely the unhappy protestors that brought a premature end to the conference -- apparently there is so much friction over the FTAA proposals between the US and a whole number of Latin American nations that they settled for a 'cut and run' agreement that doesn't really mean anything. The risk was that the initiative would entirely collapse if the US pushed it much further.

Is this the agreement that this article speaks of, or is Bush still pushing for the whole kit and kaboodle?

I think in the end that the US is going to end up negotiating a trade agreement with a union of Latin American states (ie., Mercosur), as opposed to each one individually. Kind of like a collective bargaining versus 'right to trade'-shop sort of issue.