Clinching the Case Against CAFTA
By by William Norman Grigg The New American Online, June 3, 2005
The Center for Security Policy, a Washington think-tank aligned with the Bush administration, admits that the pact has nothing to do with free trade.
In a May 31 White House press conference, President Bush reiterated that the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) would be a boon to the U.S. CAFTA, insisted Mr. Bush, "will open a market of 44 million consumers to our producers, to our workers, the products that our workers make, to our farmers. We'll lower barriers in key sectors like textiles, which will make American manufacturers more profitable and competitive in the global market, and keep jobs here in America."
Additionally, he continued, "There's a geopolitical, as well as economic, concern for CAFTA" – specifically, the need to "support young democracies [in the region]. And that's going to be important." Implicit in that claim is the idea that CAFTA – rather than being a "free" trade pact – is actually a disguised form of foreign aid intended to benefit the governments of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic. This in turn would mean that those governments would be exporting to the U.S., rather than importing more goods produced here.
As The New American has repeatedly pointed out, Republican proponents of CAFTA invariably recite some version of the administration’s argument that the agreement is needed to support "young democracies" in the region – without admitting what this portends for our own economic health. Confirmation of our analysis is now available in a remarkably candid pro-CAFTA essay published by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Washington-based think-tank closely aligned with the Bush administration.
In its June 2 "Decision Brief" entitled "The National Security Case for CAFTA," the Center for Security Policy dispenses altogether with the idea that the agreement has anything to do with expanding U.S. trade or enhancing our economy. "The truth of the matter is that the CAFTA region … accounts for an almost imperceptible fraction of U.S. trade," writes the CSP, conceding a point we have made on many occasions. "Most dollars going to Central America are spent on consumer goods chiefly made in Japan, Korea and China. The United States does not compete appreciably with the region’s main indigenous exports – coffee, cacao, cane sugar and banana production."
However, the impoverished region does export a huge number of illegal immigrants to the United States. And since "Washington has shown itself generally unwilling or unable to enforce existing immigration statues nor enact more effective laws and border security measures, it is in the U.S. interest to create more incentives for Central Americans to stay in their native lands."
Rather than compelling the federal government to carry out its constitutional mandate to protect our borders, continues the CSP, Washington should find some way to transfer wealth to the CAFTA governments. "CAFTA would help create jobs in the region – especially in the area’s much sought-after maquiladora assembly industry as well as future industrial development – affording many Central Americans an opportunity to stay home with their families," the group asserts.
This would mean creating another huge magnet drawing manufacturing jobs south – and further erosion of our own manufacturing base and middle class economy. But this is of little concern to the CSP, which maintains that "the consideration that should trump all others is the fact that CAFTA will contribute to America’s national security – and its defeat would significantly and adversely affect our security interests in the region and beyond."
"National security," according to the CSP, dictates that we should "stop penalizing our friends" – meaning Washington-aligned Latin American governments – "while rewarding our enemies," such as Venezuelan Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez, the emerging leader of a growing, anti-U.S. Latin American left.
But CAFTA would reward that movement in the long run by undermining our economy and accelerating the amalgamation of our nation with the region. CAFTA is just a preliminary installment in a larger plan to consolidate the hemisphere in a European Union-style economic and political bloc. The self-styled Metternichs at the CSP would have us enact CAFTA for the supposed purpose of battling Latin America’s Marxist movement – but enacting the agreement would mean dragging down our economy and eventual merger with the region’s Marxist regimes.
