Our prime minister met with Bush the other day

[*NZ*]

Just talking about stuff like War on terror etc.

When the subject of a free trade agreement was mentioned by NZ prime minister Helen Clark, Dubya couldn't help but chuckle at the idea of one being put in place.

Obviously not a high priority for the USA.

[Vegas]

Free trade agreements are a fine thing. But they take far too long to get negotiated and through the approval process. It's the reason that Bill Clinton and George Bush wanted the "fast track" authority to make such agreements but that hasn't been granted by the Senate.

[*NZ*]

What is the senate's motivation to deny such 'fast track' authority for mutually beneficial things like free trade agreements?

[Vegas]

What is the senate's motivation to deny such 'fast track' authority for mutually beneficial things like free trade agreements?

Because of the rules of debate and such. Once a treaty gets negotiated, it gets submitted to the Senate. In free trade agreements, anyone who would be against whatever treaty then tries to get as many as their friends as possible to join them. Then they start adding amendments such as new airport funds back home so they can get reelected easier.

[IBC]

Free Trade Enslaving Poor Countries
by Sanjay Suri


LONDON - The new free trade agreements being signed up between rich and poor countries are proving far more damaging to the poor than anything envisaged within WTO talks, Oxfam said in a report Tuesday.

The new free trade agreements being signed up between rich and poor countries are proving far more damaging to the poor than anything envisaged within WTO talks, Oxfam said in a report Tuesday.


FREE TRADE ENSLAVING POOR COUNTRIES
Cotton to be packaged in Pama, central Burkina Faso. Poor cotton farmers in West Africa face new pressures from low commodity prices and from privatization programs advocated by donors like the World Bank, the charity Oxfam said in a report Thursday. (AFP/Issouf Sanogo)
"Poor countries are being forced into very deep tariff cuts," Emily Jones, author of the Oxfam report 'Signing Away the Future' told IPS. "These are often being reduced to zero under reciprocal so-called free trade agreements they are being forced to sign with rich countries."

That means poor countries are having to open up their markets to subsidized agricultural products from places like the EU, she said.

There are already more than 250 regional and bilateral agreements in existence and more under negotiation, the report says. Regional and bilateral trade deals now govern more than 30 percent of world trade, and 25 developing countries have now signed free trade agreements with developed countries.

"An average of two bilateral investment treaties are signed every week, the report says. "Virtually no country, however poor, has been left out."

The agreements undermine moves to development, the report says.

"In an increasingly globalized world, these agreements seek to benefit rich-country exporters and firms at the expense of poor farmers and workers, with grave implications for the environment and development," it says.

The United States and the EU are pushing through rules on intellectual property that reduce poor people's access to life-saving medicines, increase the prices of seeds and other farming inputs beyond the reach of small farmers, and make it harder for developing-country firms to access new technology, the report says.

Governments are sometimes showing themselves powerless against such moves.

"Some developing countries find themselves between a rock and a hard place," said Jones. "Many are signing up to these so-called economic partnership agreements for fear of losing preferences," Jones said. Many of these countries have been offered export preferences in return for dropping tariffs against imports from developed countries.

The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has brought 1.3 million job losses in Mexico in ten years, Jones said. Increased exports to the United States have failed to generate growth, and some studies show that the real wages in 2004 were less than in 1994, Jones said.

The rules on liberalization of services in such agreements threaten to drive local firms out of business, reduce competition, and extend the monopoly power of large companies, the report says.

"When Mexico liberalized financial services in 1993 in preparation for NAFTA, foreign ownership of the banking system increased to 85 percent in seven years, but lending to Mexican businesses dropped from 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 0.3 per cent, depriving poor people living in rural areas of vital sources of credit."

Governments in developing countries usually come under strong political pressure to sign up to such deals, Simon Ticehurst from Oxfam in Bolivia told IPS. "But a lot depends also on the type of development models that governments present to their people," he said.

"Colombia and Peru have been signing up to these agreements. Others are more reluctant. "You now have a small country like Bolivia and many new governments across Latin America beginning to challenge the logic of free trade agreements."

Oxfam has demanded the following:

* Recognize the special and differential treatment that developing countries require in order to move up the development ladder.
* Enable developing countries to adopt flexible intellectual-property legislation to ensure the primacy of public health and agricultural livelihoods and protect traditional knowledge and biodiversity.
* Exclude essential public services such as education, health, water and sanitation from liberalization commitments.
* Recognize the right of governments to regulate the entry of foreign investors to promote development and the creation of decent employment, and include commitments to enforce core labor standards for all workers.
* Ensure mechanisms for extensive participation of all stakeholders in the negotiating process, with full disclosure of information to the public, including the findings of independent impact assessments.

Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service.

[Vegas]

Nafta has been a great success for everyone. It's one of the things I give Clinton great credit for.

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2004/NAFTA_A_Decade_of_Success.html

NAFTA demonstrates the benefits trade can bring to all countries. When NAFTA was implemented 10 years ago, it created the world’s largest free trade area, which now links 426 million people in an area which produces more than $12 trillion worth of goods and services. During the past decade, NAFTA partners have been conducting business within a framework that is extremely open, governed by clear rules and accessible enforcement mechanisms, with the goal of greater economic integration and cooperation. Some examples of NAFTA’s success:



INCREASED EXPORTS AND INVESTMENT FLOWS



● All member economies have grown significantly from 1993-2003:

· United States: 38% economic growth

· Canada: 30.9% growth

· Mexico: 30% growth



● U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico grew from US$134.3 billion (US$46.5 billion to Mexico and US$87.8 billion to Canada) to US$250.6 billion (US$105.4 and US$145.3 billion respectively).



● Mexican exports to the United States reached over US$138 billion, while Mexican exports to Canada grew from US$2.7 billion to US$8.7 billion, an increase of almost 227%.



● Canada’s exports to its NAFTA partners increased by 104% in value.

[pnkpanther]

NAFTA has been very beneficial

i like free trade,


but i think ameircan has to watch who they trade with, i think america should have a high standars of trading partners, it may mean more expensive goods, but so be it.

[Vegas]

NAFTA has been very beneficial

i like free trade,


but i think ameircan has to watch who they trade with, i think america should have a high standars of trading partners, it may mean more expensive goods, but so be it.

I agree. We don't pay nearly enough attention to the human rights issues in all of the countries with whom we trade. China is a prime example.

[Tom Joad]

but i think ameircan has to watch who they trade with, i think america should have a high standars of trading partners, it may mean more expensive goods, but so be it.


Let's make sure the countries we trade with don't violate human rights (http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng).

[Reagan Smash]

Let's make sure the countries we trade with don't violate human rights (http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng).


According to Amnesty International, most of the countries in the world violate human rights.

[Tom Joad]

According to Amnesty International, most of the countries in the world violate human rights.


But, we don't give most countries favored nation status.

[Jiddy78]

All these semantics and piles of paperwork are meaningless so long as we tote the big gun. The chindians will give us our trinkets.

[BoredWithNoSB]

We violate human rights.

Anyway, I don't think we should be using economic policies to push our social agenda (except in extreme cases like countries that have vowed to destroy us or other nation that are critical to our security).

The biggest problem I have with China is the ineffective enforcement of Iprop laws. I think any country should be required to comply with the strictest standard of copywrite/tradfemark law and if they refuse to do so they get locked out of trade in the sector for 180 days. Lets see how Russia reacts to no CDs from Pink for six months, or how China reacts to no movies for six months. Maybe then they'll realize we really mean it.

Plus, we seem to only use our clout in stupid situations like to protect union workers or make sure some factory with 35 employees in the far reaches of Northwest Mchigan isn't threatened.

[Jiddy78]

We violate human rights.

Anyway, I don't think we should be using economic policies to push our social agenda (except in extreme cases like countries that have vowed to destroy us or other nation that are critical to our security).

The biggest problem I have with China is the ineffective enforcement of Iprop laws. I think any country should be required to comply with the strictest standard of copywrite/tradfemark law and if they refuse to do so they get locked out of trade in the sector for 180 days. Lets see how Russia reacts to no CDs from Pink for six months, or how China reacts to no movies for six months. Maybe then they'll realize we really mean it.

Plus, we seem to only use our clout in stupid situations like to protect union workers or make sure some factory with 35 employees in the far reaches of Northwest Mchigan isn't threatened.

LMFAO....We'll hold back pink and brokeback mountain....

That'll teach 'em!!!


Oh man it's good to be the guy with the big gun....cuz I'd hate to see the counterreaction to some sh*t like this, besides laughter, like maybe some actual "goods" being held back.

Hey, maybe we can find a way to export McMansions and healthcare...

[Tom Joad]

We violate human rights.


Sure enough. But, we've already shown that we're not going to do anything for our own citizens so let's at least take a stand against other country's human rights violations. Since we're so concerned with how other country's run themselves, let's take a stand.