Can CAFTA Before it Destroys Sovereignty and Small Farms
Peter Allgeier, the acting U.S. trade representative, says CAFTA, the proposed trade agreement with Central America and the Dominican Republic, would double U.S. agricultural exports to the region. That has Central American farmers worried.
Like the North American Free Trade Agreement, upon which it is modeled, CAFTA would flood Central America's markets with products of U.S. agribusiness, much of which is still heavily subsidized. According to Oxfam, U.S. corn exports to Central America would increase by 10,000 percent in the first year. The region's small farmers, who make up the majority of the population, have their eyes on Mexico, where 1.7 million farmers lost their land in the first 10 years after NAFTA went into effect.
"What is at stake for the long term," says Nicaraguan economist Adolfo Acevedo, "is not just the possibility of preserving a large part of the national food production . . . but the fate of the labor force itself, and, more deeply yet, the fate of the human beings linked to this form of production."
Like their Mexican counterparts, their likely fate would be to migrate to Central American cities, where their best hope would be to get low-paid jobs in the sweatshops that have displaced good jobs in New Hampshire and other U.S. locations. Or, they may take the risk of braving vigilantes and the border patrol to migrate to the U.S.A., where more sweatshop jobs await.
CAFTA includes "investor rights" provisions that would make it possible for foreign corporations to sue for monetary damages if laws adopted at any level of government eat into their profits. Under a similar provision of NAFTA, the U.S.-based Ethyl Corp. won $13 million in damages when Canada outlawed use of MMT, a gasoline additive. As part of the settlement, Canada also overturned its ban on the chemical, which was known to be a neuro-toxin. Under CAFTA rules, such cases would not be heard in open courts, but by secretive panels of trade arbitrators. Laws and regulations to promote public health, human rights and environmental protection would all be at risk.
While CAFTA should be defeated on its own demerits, its significance is greater. It is widely seen as a template for additional agreements that would threaten U.S. jobs, strip authority from democratic governments at all levels, endanger access to essential services such as water, and continue to wreak havoc on the rural economies of poor countries.
International trade is an important element of today's integrated, global economy. But global trade agreements must allow protections for health, social justice and environmental stewardship to be placed before private gain, and they must not trump the ability of democratic governments to protect their own citizens.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Peter Allgeier, the acting U.S. trade representative, says CAFTA, the proposed trade agreement with Central America and the Dominican Republic, would double U.S. agricultural exports to the region. That has Central American farmers worried.
Like the North American Free Trade Agreement, upon which it is modeled, CAFTA would flood Central America's markets with products of U.S. agribusiness, much of which is still heavily subsidized. According to Oxfam, U.S. corn exports to Central America would increase by 10,000 percent in the first year. The region's small farmers, who make up the majority of the population, have their eyes on Mexico, where 1.7 million farmers lost their land in the first 10 years after NAFTA went into effect.
"What is at stake for the long term," says Nicaraguan economist Adolfo Acevedo, "is not just the possibility of preserving a large part of the national food production . . . but the fate of the labor force itself, and, more deeply yet, the fate of the human beings linked to this form of production."
Like their Mexican counterparts, their likely fate would be to migrate to Central American cities, where their best hope would be to get low-paid jobs in the sweatshops that have displaced good jobs in New Hampshire and other U.S. locations. Or, they may take the risk of braving vigilantes and the border patrol to migrate to the U.S.A., where more sweatshop jobs await.
CAFTA includes "investor rights" provisions that would make it possible for foreign corporations to sue for monetary damages if laws adopted at any level of government eat into their profits. Under a similar provision of NAFTA, the U.S.-based Ethyl Corp. won $13 million in damages when Canada outlawed use of MMT, a gasoline additive. As part of the settlement, Canada also overturned its ban on the chemical, which was known to be a neuro-toxin. Under CAFTA rules, such cases would not be heard in open courts, but by secretive panels of trade arbitrators. Laws and regulations to promote public health, human rights and environmental protection would all be at risk.
While CAFTA should be defeated on its own demerits, its significance is greater. It is widely seen as a template for additional agreements that would threaten U.S. jobs, strip authority from democratic governments at all levels, endanger access to essential services such as water, and continue to wreak havoc on the rural economies of poor countries.
International trade is an important element of today's integrated, global economy. But global trade agreements must allow protections for health, social justice and environmental stewardship to be placed before private gain, and they must not trump the ability of democratic governments to protect their own citizens.
Peter Allgeier, the acting U.S. trade representative, says CAFTA, the proposed trade agreement with Central America and the Dominican Republic, would double U.S. agricultural exports to the region. That has Central American farmers worried.
Like the North American Free Trade Agreement, upon which it is modeled, CAFTA would flood Central America's markets with products of U.S. agribusiness, much of which is still heavily subsidized. According to Oxfam, U.S. corn exports to Central America would increase by 10,000 percent in the first year. The region's small farmers, who make up the majority of the population, have their eyes on Mexico, where 1.7 million farmers lost their land in the first 10 years after NAFTA went into effect.
"What is at stake for the long term," says Nicaraguan economist Adolfo Acevedo, "is not just the possibility of preserving a large part of the national food production . . . but the fate of the labor force itself, and, more deeply yet, the fate of the human beings linked to this form of production."
Like their Mexican counterparts, their likely fate would be to migrate to Central American cities, where their best hope would be to get low-paid jobs in the sweatshops that have displaced good jobs in New Hampshire and other U.S. locations. Or, they may take the risk of braving vigilantes and the border patrol to migrate to the U.S.A., where more sweatshop jobs await.
CAFTA includes "investor rights" provisions that would make it possible for foreign corporations to sue for monetary damages if laws adopted at any level of government eat into their profits. Under a similar provision of NAFTA, the U.S.-based Ethyl Corp. won $13 million in damages when Canada outlawed use of MMT, a gasoline additive. As part of the settlement, Canada also overturned its ban on the chemical, which was known to be a neuro-toxin. Under CAFTA rules, such cases would not be heard in open courts, but by secretive panels of trade arbitrators. Laws and regulations to promote public health, human rights and environmental protection would all be at risk.
While CAFTA should be defeated on its own demerits, its significance is greater. It is widely seen as a template for additional agreements that would threaten U.S. jobs, strip authority from democratic governments at all levels, endanger access to essential services such as water, and continue to wreak havoc on the rural economies of poor countries.
International trade is an important element of today's integrated, global economy. But global trade agreements must allow protections for health, social justice and environmental stewardship to be placed before private gain, and they must not trump the ability of democratic governments to protect their own citizens.