The Hidden Pages of CAFTA

[dogday]

At 2,400 pages, the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) isn't really about trade. Frankly, you don't need 2,400 pages to eliminate tariffs and regulations on exports and imports. But, you might need 2,400 pages to smuggle through a new set of transnational corporate rights disguised by complicated legalese. I wonder, how many of our Congressional representatives will have even attempted to read this trade to me before next week's vote?

I recall in 1994 that only one senator Republican; Hank Brown (R-CO), accepted Ralph Nader's challenge to win $10,000 for charity by taking a simple ten-question quiz on the content of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement. After studying the agreement, Brown announced to the press: "I am a Republican, pro business and a proponent of the free market economy and I am here to speak out against the WTO. For when you read this text - and I invite my colleague senators to do this - you will understand that the WTO is fundamentally undemocratic."

Any naïve Congressperson who thinks CAFTA is merely about free trade should look carefully at its provisions on government contracts and corporate lawsuits, among others.

Government contracts. For any purchases over $117,000 (eventually to be lowered to $58,000), CAFTA forces governments to open up bidding to transnational corporations. That means that states will not longer be able to give preference to home-based businesses, and so mom and pop stores in Central America and the U.S. will suddenly be competing with the Bechtels and the Halliburtons of the world.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-33.htm


Just another bill to help big business and crap on the little people..

[mattclearing]

1. But isn't that what free trade is all about?

It's about eliminating protectionist measures. Like protecting local businesses from being underbid by larger corporations.

[1932]

4. Free trade is cool when it's on a level playing field. CAFTA is about...

...making sure there will never be a level playing field. It's about ensuring that there will never be a Columbian Microsoft or a Nicaraguan Bechtel.

[mattclearing]

9. Actually, that's more of a side effect.

You are right that the end result is larger corporations have a enhanced propensity to succeed, but the aim is to allow for the lowest possible price for goods, which is often exploitative.

[1932]

10. Not lowest poissible price. The lowest possible cost is the goal.

And the difference between the cost and the sale price is profit that accumulates to corporate insiders. It's not a savings that's passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices, or to the worker in the form of higher salaries.

The goal of bills like CAFTA is to accumulate power for the powerful.

[mattclearing]

13. I didn't say lowest possible consumer price. n/t

[rman]

2. The story of Senator Hank Brown (R), Nader and the WTO agreement

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html

<snip>

RN: Did you hear about my challenge to Senator Hank Brown?

We put a challenge out before WTO was voted in 1995 because we went all over Capitol Hill and had never found any Member of Congress or a staffer who had ever read the proposal. So I said, “I’ll give $10,000 to the favorite charity of any Member of Congress who will sign an affidavit that he or she has read the WTO agreement and will answer 10 questions in public.”

The deadline passed. Nobody. So I extended it a week. A quarter to 5:00 on Friday, the phone rings in our office. It is Hank Brown, and he said, “I don’t want the $10,000 to charity, but I will take you up on it. How much time do I have?” I said, “Take a month.” So he reserves the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the interrogation.

It gets better. The press is all there, and in the witness chair is Hank Brown. We have 12 questions, and he answers every one. They weren’t all simple either. It was really impressive. And I said, “Thank you very much. That was really commendable,” and we start to get up and he says, “Wait. I have something to say.” He says, “You know, I am a free trader, and I voted for NAFTA, but after reading the WTO agreement, I was so appalled by the anti-democratic provisions that I am going to vote against it and urge everyone else to.”

The next day, almost no press. It shows you the bias against anybody who challenges those multinational systems of autocratic governance that we call “trade agreements.” And he didn’t convince one extra senator.

famous quote:
“Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, it is indeed a pleasure to testify before a committee of Congress that has read this proposed trade agreement,” and the chair looks up and says, “What makes you think we did?”

[1932]

5. It is so true that there is no press for anything that challenges neo-

liberalism.

[MelissaB]

3. Nominating because I didn't know this.

[ulysses]

6. recommended.

Thank you for posting this.

[rman]

7. fundamentally undemocratic, example thereof

NAFTA's chapter 11

"...gives corporations rights to sue governments in special tribunals, for unlimited compensation for profits lost due to normal governments activities."

"...there have been cases, like "Metalclad".
An American company called "Metalclad" went down to Mexico to build a toxic waste dump on an aquafer; the local supply of water. The government said "no, this goes against our environmental laws".
The people are getting poisoned from the water - what corporation has a right to poison our water? The government passed a law that said "no, you can't operate this thing".
They said "that's to bad, we have rights as a corporation that outweigh your human rights". They sued them for 17.5 million dollars saying it was a barrier to fee trade.
This US corporation takes the Mexican government to a NAFTA court, sues under this chapter eleven, and the ruling is - the Mexican government has to pay millions of dollars in "penalties", for "lost profits" of this corporation."

from the documentary "Trading Freedom" (Indymedia)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284511.html

also documented at

Berkeley University
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/classpresentations/Metalclad.pdf (PDF)
(turns out the amount in penalties to be payed by the Mexican government was reduced, but "...the judge agreed with the NAFTA panel on the merits that the actions of the Governor constituted expropriation".

New York Law Journal
http://www.clm.com/pubs/pub-990359_1.html

Stop FTAA
http://www.stopftaa.org/article.php?id=37

"NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-to-State Cases: Bankrupting Democracy"
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/Nafta_Chapter11.pdf (PDF)

[dean_dem]

8. Not only am I wondering who reads this...

(answer: no one), who is able to write 2,400 pages of legal documents? How long does it take to write something like that?

[Elwood P Dowd]

11. CAFTA was written by the corporate lawyers

representing the companies who stood to profit from the agreement.

[mikelgb]

12. it should be the law...

that elected reps 1) are given enough time to read and understand legislatoion 2) are required to actually READ it. They are paid money to sit in a room and vote... I expect more of my servants than that

[arcos]

14. kick nt

[Deja Q]

15. People don't think. That's the bulk of the problem right there.

"party unity" and nothing more. Blind adherence.

Hank Brown is a guy I would love to sit down and talk with. I think we'd agree on far more things than disagree. (though I am as much pro-consumer as I am pro-business; there needs to be a regulated balance to ensure longevity.)