Let's debate DR-CAFTA

Great Debates
1

There wasn’t that much interest in this thread – “Let’s debate DR-CAFTA and FTAA vs. CARICOM and CSN” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=316971 – maybe because I tried to bring in too many interrelated subjects. So let’s debate something narrower and more immediate: DR-CAFTA.

The Bush Administration wants to create a new free trade zone, modeled on NAFTA, which would include the U.S., the Dominican Republic, and the Central American republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras (but not Belize or Panama). From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFTA):

Here’s “15 Reasons to Support DR-CAFTA,” from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/international/0504_cafta_15reasons.htm

And here’s a contrary view from Central American farmers, who fear the tariff union, and competition from U.S. agriculture, will drive them out of business: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/press_releases/press_release.2005-04-27.1406673197; http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/campaigns/mtf_americas/news_publications/feature_story.2005-05-02.6171467377.

American sugar growers are also hostile to DR-CAFTA – for essentially the same reasons: http://www.crystalsugar.com/media/news.archives/show.asp

So, what do you think? Would DR-CAFTA be good or bad for the U.S.? Good or bad for its Central American and Caribbean participants? Good or bad for anybody else?

2

Here’s a website devoted to stopping DR-CAFTA: http://www.stopcafta.org/

And here’s a more measured analysis from the Center for American Progress: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=795035

Here’s an update on the process of approval in the Senate as of last week (6/14/05): http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/14/cafta.legislation.ap/index.html

3

The American Progress site reports the problems this agreement had in congress:

It seems that sugar is going to be the biggest stumbling block in this agreement, and it seems that workers in both the USA and DR-CA will get little help for displaced jobs or for improving work conditions.

4

I can’t imagine why - other than protectionist agendas - people would possibly be against this. This sort of free trade is exactly the way that people and countries can rise out of poverty.

5

Why would both american and DR-CA sugar farms oppose it? Surely at least one group will win out from this.

6

Update: On Thursday, 6/30/05, the Senate approved DR-CAFTA, 54-45. Now it goes to the House. http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/07/03/WashingtonDCBureau/324005.html

Of the other participating nations, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have approved it; it still needs to be approved by the legislatures of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/03/BUGS8DI7PR1.DTL

7

So far as I know, only U.S. sugar growers are opposed to it. Likewise, U.S. textile interests. Most other U.S. business interests are in favor.

8

This article from the San Francisco Chronicle – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/03/BUGS8DI7PR1.DTL – provides a pretty good rundown of who (in the U.S.) is pro- and anti-CAFTA.

9

Can’t have too many FTAs as far as I’m concerned. FTAs do more for the third world than all sorts of aid. They should be an integral part of our foreign policy and national-security strategy.

10

And what has NAFTA done to raise the Mexicans out of poverty? Not much, according to posters in this thread: “11 years into NAFTA . . . was it worth it?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315669 Some of the Mexican rich have gotten richer off it, but nobody in the thread thinks the broad mass of Mexican people, or the country as a whole, have grown any more prosperous for having tariff-free trade with the U.S. and Canada.

11

The House of Representatives is voting on CAFTA this week, so gitcher last licks in!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072500822.html

12

BTW, the right-wing (paleocon variety) America First Party (Pat Buchanan’s organization) is also against CAFTA: http://www.americafirstparty.org/news/2005/PressRel2005_07_13.shtml And was always against NAFTA.

13

Well, the House has approved CAFTA, and there’s no doubt Bush will sign it, so it’s a done deal. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0507290226jul29,1,3143136.story?coll=chi-business-hed

It’s surprising there wasn’t more interest in this issue, in this forum or in American society generally. I guess most Americans who’ve heard of CAFTA at all just assume that, the other nations involved having such tiny economies, the treaty’s effect on the U.S. economy, whether good or bad, will be negligible. And maybe they’re right.

14

Really? Why do you say this exactly, as opposed to multi-lateral deals through the WTO? I feel those tend to be somewhat fairer to poorer nations, and give larger blocs, such as the US and the EU, less room to protect their favorite lobbies (the sugar lobby absolutely disgusts me. If every last one of them gets sent to Cuba, I would be escstatic, if only because of what they’ve done to impede these sorts of deals).

BTW, I am pleased to see this deal get through, and utterly appaled at the behavior of the Democratic party with regards to trade lately, both on this issue and their previous chest-thumping with regards to China (I will note that I was very disappointed when I saw John Kerry was among those voting against CAFTA – I lost a lot of respect for him because of that). I can only take comfort in the fact that my Democratic senator at least came out in favor of this.

15

I’m all for CAFTA just as soon as the member nations all adopt the eight-hour day, the forty-hour week (don’t forget time and a half for overtime), workers’ compensation, the right of workers to collectively bargain, occupational safety and health regulations, environmental regulations like those in place in the U.S., Social Security, Medicare, and a bunch of other stuff I haven’t thought of off the top of my head.

The way CAFTA was sold by the free-traders in Congress, it appears to be a purely humanitarian measure to allow U.S. consumers to lift Managua up until it is just like Kansas City. So I’m sure all the CAFTA countries will be up to speed on those issues real soon now. Why, if they aren’t, some jaded skeptics in the U.S. might jump to the conclusion that CAFTA is really just a way for U.S. retailers and investors to evade all those things that make it possible for unskilled workers to live like civilized human beings.

16

Does the passage of CAFTA mean I get to have real sugar in Coke again and can stop bootlegging it in from Juarez?

17

More likely the boys in Atlanta are satisfied Americans have gotten used to the corn syrup.

I mean, is there any brand of cola sold in the U.S. that still has cane sugar in it?

18

Why yes’sir, there is.

The finest carbonated beverage in the world still uses real sugar, namely Dublin(style) Dr. Pepper.

If you’re a Yankee or somesuch you may not drink Dr. Pepper, much less Dublin Dr. Pepper, but it’s absolutely fantastic.

While all other Cola companies abandoned sugar in the US (there is still sugar sweetened Coca-Cola overseas, but it’s illegal to import and hard to find here in the US if you don’t know where to look), a couple Dr. Pepper bottlers maintained it.

Dublin Dr. Pepper (named for Dublin, TX, the birthplace of DP) is actually produced in Sherman, TX. now but can be found in select stores across North Texas at virtually the same price as the original. It is also made in Dublin itself, with the true original recipe, however they only bottle once every 1-2 weeks and they do it publicly only if you have a crate of old cola bottles that will withstand the pressure of their 1950’s style bottling equipment.

The actual Dublin DP is to die for, it’s absolutely amazing. The Dublin DP that’s made in Sherman is great too though, and honestly blows Coke out of the proverbial water. It’s not even close.

Sugar tastes so, so, so much better than corn syrup.

19

Just imagine the merry mixups it could land you in of you spoke that sentence out of context . . . :wink: