Is CAFTA a Sweet Deal??
On Wednesday, April 13th of this year, in hopes of making new trade agreements, the United States Congress held a meeting to discuss opening up trade barriers regarding sugar. With respect to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), Congress hopes to get rid of barriers to trade between the United States and five Central American countries (along with the Dominican Republic).
However, there are members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, that object to this trade agreement. Republicans are worried about domestic sugar producers, in that opening up trade with a few sugar-producing countries would lead to more countries entering the U.S sugar market, thus, completely flooding this market. Meanwhile, the article states that Democrats have generally become “increasingly hostile toward free trade in recent years”.
At the meeting, Peter Allgeier, acting as U.S. trade representative, stated that the CAFTA agreement would only create a small amount of additional sugar to be imported into the U.S. and that the Bush Administration would be willing to protect the sugar producers in the United States. The White House would protect the domestic producers by blocking imports of sugar and paying the exporting countries to compensate for the lost trade with the U.S.
Advocates of CAFTA hope that this agreement will set precedent for other trade agreements. For example, if this agreement is successful, it could lead to a “Western Hemisphere-wide free-trade zone and a global agreement to lower trade barriers among members of the WTO”.
Will this agreement be passed? And, if it is, will the advocates of the agreement be correct in their assumptions? Will sugar workers in the United States be affected or will the Bush Administration keep its promise of protecting these workers? It will be interesting to keep watch on this issue and find out the answers to these questions. To read more about this topic, visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51820-2005Apr13.html.
However, there are members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, that object to this trade agreement. Republicans are worried about domestic sugar producers, in that opening up trade with a few sugar-producing countries would lead to more countries entering the U.S sugar market, thus, completely flooding this market. Meanwhile, the article states that Democrats have generally become “increasingly hostile toward free trade in recent years”.
At the meeting, Peter Allgeier, acting as U.S. trade representative, stated that the CAFTA agreement would only create a small amount of additional sugar to be imported into the U.S. and that the Bush Administration would be willing to protect the sugar producers in the United States. The White House would protect the domestic producers by blocking imports of sugar and paying the exporting countries to compensate for the lost trade with the U.S.
Advocates of CAFTA hope that this agreement will set precedent for other trade agreements. For example, if this agreement is successful, it could lead to a “Western Hemisphere-wide free-trade zone and a global agreement to lower trade barriers among members of the WTO”.
Will this agreement be passed? And, if it is, will the advocates of the agreement be correct in their assumptions? Will sugar workers in the United States be affected or will the Bush Administration keep its promise of protecting these workers? It will be interesting to keep watch on this issue and find out the answers to these questions. To read more about this topic, visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51820-2005Apr13.html.
2 Comments:
At 12:35 AM, Brad Grier said…
I liked your blog post, even though I wasn't personally familiar with CAFTA. I just wonder if NAFTA and CAFTA did actually merge together, would Ross Perot hear an even greater sucking sound with more of our jobs being sent to foreign countries? I saw where Democrats and Republicans are taking both sides. Does this mean John Kerry is not only flip-flopping on political issues, but political parties as well? Anyways, have a good day everyone.
At 12:22 PM, alabama said…
I say yes and no to your question if CAFTA is a sweet deal. The deal may have negative affects for the workers within the sugar industry, and if this is the best solution that they can come up with then so be it, but the goverment can't continue to increase trade restrictions thats for sure. It is a fact that protectionism is not saving any jobs in the US or increasing job opportunities. What happened to the law of competitive advantage?
Post a Comment
<< Home