freetrade &mdash; Fight Back! News https://fightbacknews.org/tag:freetrade News and Views from the People's Struggle Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:24:41 +0000 https://i.snap.as/RZCOEKyz.png freetrade &mdash; Fight Back! News https://fightbacknews.org/tag:freetrade Is Trump starting a trade war with his tariffs? https://fightbacknews.org/trump-starting-trade-war-his-tariffs?pk_campaign=rss-feed <![CDATA[Fight Back! interviews economics professor Masao Suzuki !--more-- Fight Back!: Professor Suzuki, last Thursday President Trump issued an executive order slapping a 25% tariff – a tax on imports - on steel coming from other countries, and a 10% tax on imported aluminum. Is this the start of a trade war? Masao Suzuki: Just a little background. Following the end of World War II, the U.S. stepped into the shoes that Great Britain once wore, that of being the world’s dominant economic power. One leg of this “empire of the dollar” was the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates, where gold or the U.S. dollar could back the value of different countries’ money. Another leg was a system of free trade, first under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, which then became today’s World Trade Organization, or WTO. In 1971 President Nixon ended the Bretton Woods system by ending the ability of other countries to exchange their U.S. dollars for gold. This ended the system of fixed exchange rates and ushered in today’s floating, or flexible, exchange rate system. What followed was a period of relative economic instability, with much higher rates of inflation as well as more recessions. Trump tariffs strike a major blow at the free trade system set up under the WTO. While it may or may not begin a trade war, depending on how other countries respond and how the U.S. reacts to their actions, more economic instability is likely in the period ahead. Fight Back!: Most progressive movements and socialist organizations have been against free trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Do that mean that we should support the new tariffs? Suzuki: There are good reasons to oppose free trade agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO. These agreements have served to institutionalize the domination of U.S. and other multinational corporations over countries of the Third World. For example, since NAFTA passed in 1994, foreign trade and foreign investment have soared in Mexico. But millions of agricultural jobs have been lost under the onslaught of cheap and often subsidized U.S. farm products. Wages adjusted for inflation have gone down in Mexico since NAFTA and the rate of unionization among workers has dropped dramatically. NAFTA and the WTO have also sped up the movement of manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. to other countries. The loss of these jobs, where many were unionized and had good pay and benefits, is a part of the growing economic inequality in this country, where the rich are getting richer, and fewer and fewer have middle-income jobs. But this is not the only source of job losses in manufacturing. For example, in steel, the U.S. is producing about as much steel as we did 25 years ago. But there are less than half as many steel workers. One reason is that steel production has gone from using iron ore to recycling scrap steel, which is a lot less labor intensive. Another factor is that steel consumption in the U.S. has dropped, especially over the last ten years. This is because new technology has allowed other materials - plastic, ceramics, concrete, etc. - to be used instead of steel. Imports of steel, like other imports, tend to go up and down with the economy. When the economy is growing, as it is today, imports rise. If we look at the years right before previous recessions such as 2000 and 2007, imports of steel were about the same as a percentage of steel use as last year. But then during recession such as in 2009, imports of steel drop as the economy tanks. Fight Back!: But even if imports aren’t the main cause of job losses, won’t tariffs shift more production and jobs back to the U.S? There are a number of trade union leaders who are applauding Trump’s tariffs. Suzuki: It is true that both U.S. steel companies such as NUCOR and U.S. Steel and steel worker union leaders have supported Trump’s tariffs. But I think that this is a very dangerous strategy for the labor movement to take. By supporting the tariffs on steel and aluminum, you are taking sides with your own bosses. This is blaming other countries for what U.S. corporations have been doing to increase their own profits. There is also the danger that the tariffs could cause job losses in other manufacturing industries in the U.S by making steel more expensive. What is really needed is more organizing and solidarity among workers to use labor’s most effective tactic: the strike. I think that the victory of the West Virginia teachers’ strike shows the way to go for the labor movement in the U.S., not rallying to the side of big business to call for more tariffs. Fight Back!: Before you go, I wanted to ask you about China. A lot of the supporters of the tariffs are pointing their fingers at China, but I heard that the U.S. doesn’t actually import that much steel from China. Could you clarify this point for our readers? Suzuki: You are right in that only 2% of imported steel comes from China. China does produce about half of the world’s steel. But because the Chinese economy is growing so quickly, with huge expenditures on construction and infrastructure, as well as leading the world in auto production, China consumes a huge amount of steel. Because of this, less than a quarter of the world’s exports of steel come from China. Almost two-thirds of China’s exports of steel go to Asia, and another quarter goes to other Third World countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Less than 1% of China’s exports of steel go to U.S. The United States does have a large trade deficit with China, meaning that the U.S. buys more goods and services from China than China buys from the U.S. But this trade deficit is largely made in the USA. What do I mean by that? U.S. corporations have been the driving force in moving production to Mexico, China and other parts of the Third World. For example, take one of the most common imports from China: the Apple iPhone. Apple used to have manufacturing in the U.S, now it has none. First it offshored production to Ireland, and then to China. In the 1980s, there was an anti-Japanese scare and talk of how “the Japanese are going to take over the world.” Today there is an updated version of this “new yellow peril” with China as the target. I recently read an interview with Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, where he complained that Chinese tariffs were making his cars unaffordable in China, while Chinese cars only faced a U.S. tariff one-tenth as big. We all know that Teslas are not at all that affordable here in the U.S where they face no tariff. Musk also failed to add that no Chinese car companies are exporting cars to the U.S. There are a very small number of SUVs for sale in the U.S. being built in China - but this is by General Motors, another example of a U.S. corporation offshoring production. Masao Suzuki teaches economics at a community college and is a member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO). #UnitedStates #freeTrade #DonaldTrump #tariffs div id="sharingbuttons.io"/div]]> Fight Back! interviews economics professor Masao Suzuki

Fight Back!: Professor Suzuki, last Thursday President Trump issued an executive order slapping a 25% tariff – a tax on imports – on steel coming from other countries, and a 10% tax on imported aluminum. Is this the start of a trade war?

Masao Suzuki: Just a little background. Following the end of World War II, the U.S. stepped into the shoes that Great Britain once wore, that of being the world’s dominant economic power. One leg of this “empire of the dollar” was the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates, where gold or the U.S. dollar could back the value of different countries’ money. Another leg was a system of free trade, first under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, which then became today’s World Trade Organization, or WTO.

In 1971 President Nixon ended the Bretton Woods system by ending the ability of other countries to exchange their U.S. dollars for gold. This ended the system of fixed exchange rates and ushered in today’s floating, or flexible, exchange rate system. What followed was a period of relative economic instability, with much higher rates of inflation as well as more recessions.

Trump tariffs strike a major blow at the free trade system set up under the WTO. While it may or may not begin a trade war, depending on how other countries respond and how the U.S. reacts to their actions, more economic instability is likely in the period ahead.

Fight Back!: Most progressive movements and socialist organizations have been against free trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Do that mean that we should support the new tariffs?

Suzuki: There are good reasons to oppose free trade agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO. These agreements have served to institutionalize the domination of U.S. and other multinational corporations over countries of the Third World. For example, since NAFTA passed in 1994, foreign trade and foreign investment have soared in Mexico. But millions of agricultural jobs have been lost under the onslaught of cheap and often subsidized U.S. farm products. Wages adjusted for inflation have gone down in Mexico since NAFTA and the rate of unionization among workers has dropped dramatically.

NAFTA and the WTO have also sped up the movement of manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. to other countries. The loss of these jobs, where many were unionized and had good pay and benefits, is a part of the growing economic inequality in this country, where the rich are getting richer, and fewer and fewer have middle-income jobs.

But this is not the only source of job losses in manufacturing. For example, in steel, the U.S. is producing about as much steel as we did 25 years ago. But there are less than half as many steel workers. One reason is that steel production has gone from using iron ore to recycling scrap steel, which is a lot less labor intensive. Another factor is that steel consumption in the U.S. has dropped, especially over the last ten years. This is because new technology has allowed other materials – plastic, ceramics, concrete, etc. – to be used instead of steel.

Imports of steel, like other imports, tend to go up and down with the economy. When the economy is growing, as it is today, imports rise. If we look at the years right before previous recessions such as 2000 and 2007, imports of steel were about the same as a percentage of steel use as last year. But then during recession such as in 2009, imports of steel drop as the economy tanks.

Fight Back!: But even if imports aren’t the main cause of job losses, won’t tariffs shift more production and jobs back to the U.S? There are a number of trade union leaders who are applauding Trump’s tariffs.

Suzuki: It is true that both U.S. steel companies such as NUCOR and U.S. Steel and steel worker union leaders have supported Trump’s tariffs. But I think that this is a very dangerous strategy for the labor movement to take. By supporting the tariffs on steel and aluminum, you are taking sides with your own bosses. This is blaming other countries for what U.S. corporations have been doing to increase their own profits. There is also the danger that the tariffs could cause job losses in other manufacturing industries in the U.S by making steel more expensive. What is really needed is more organizing and solidarity among workers to use labor’s most effective tactic: the strike. I think that the victory of the West Virginia teachers’ strike shows the way to go for the labor movement in the U.S., not rallying to the side of big business to call for more tariffs.

Fight Back!: Before you go, I wanted to ask you about China. A lot of the supporters of the tariffs are pointing their fingers at China, but I heard that the U.S. doesn’t actually import that much steel from China. Could you clarify this point for our readers?

Suzuki: You are right in that only 2% of imported steel comes from China. China does produce about half of the world’s steel. But because the Chinese economy is growing so quickly, with huge expenditures on construction and infrastructure, as well as leading the world in auto production, China consumes a huge amount of steel. Because of this, less than a quarter of the world’s exports of steel come from China. Almost two-thirds of China’s exports of steel go to Asia, and another quarter goes to other Third World countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Less than 1% of China’s exports of steel go to U.S.

The United States does have a large trade deficit with China, meaning that the U.S. buys more goods and services from China than China buys from the U.S. But this trade deficit is largely made in the USA. What do I mean by that? U.S. corporations have been the driving force in moving production to Mexico, China and other parts of the Third World. For example, take one of the most common imports from China: the Apple iPhone. Apple used to have manufacturing in the U.S, now it has none. First it offshored production to Ireland, and then to China.

In the 1980s, there was an anti-Japanese scare and talk of how “the Japanese are going to take over the world.” Today there is an updated version of this “new yellow peril” with China as the target. I recently read an interview with Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, where he complained that Chinese tariffs were making his cars unaffordable in China, while Chinese cars only faced a U.S. tariff one-tenth as big. We all know that Teslas are not at all that affordable here in the U.S where they face no tariff. Musk also failed to add that no Chinese car companies are exporting cars to the U.S. There are a very small number of SUVs for sale in the U.S. being built in China – but this is by General Motors, another example of a U.S. corporation offshoring production.

Masao Suzuki teaches economics at a community college and is a member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO).

#UnitedStates #freeTrade #DonaldTrump #tariffs

]]> https://fightbacknews.org/trump-starting-trade-war-his-tariffs Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:29:53 +0000 Fight Corporate Globalization: Say No To U.S. Intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean https://fightbacknews.org/sept29dc?pk_campaign=rss-feed <![CDATA[On Sept. 29, an important demonstration will take place in Washington D.C. In conjunction with the protests surrounding the meeting of the International Monetary Fund, thousands will raise their voices against U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean. What follows is a reprint of the call to the protest. We urge the readers of Fight Back! to build for, and attend the demonstration. !--more-- Join tens of thousands in Washington DC on Saturday, September 29 to say: No to Plan Colombia No to the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) U.S. Bases out of Vieques and all of Latin America & the Caribbean Close the School of the Americas / WHISC Stop the Direct Assault Against People of Color and the Poor in the Americas through the Phony War on Drugs The U.S. government is continuing its legacy of intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean by imposing pro-corporate, anti-people economic policies, by providing military aid and training to repressive governments, and attempting to crush any movements that support alternative models. We must stop these policies and stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers throughout the Americas. They are at the forefront of opposition to these policies, and are creating alternatives that place human need above corporate greed. The U.S. government is using its armed forces to push through economic policies that only serve to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This war system works hand in hand with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. government is using the production of narcotics in the southern part of the American continent as an excuse to militarize the Americas. There are currently military bases in Cuba, Ecuador, and Puerto Rico and a strong military presence in Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru. Current U.S. policy towards Colombia is a failed policy which is inflaming a violent conflict and contributing to increased human rights abuses. We call for an end to all military aid to Colombia and for an end to U.S. funding of fumigation in Colombia and the Andean region. We recognize that U.S.-funded fumigation of coca crops is destroying critical biodiversity throughout the Amazon region and is creating health and food security crises among the local populations. At the same time - with the excuses of the "drug war", and "illegal" immigration - the U.S. has militarized its border with Mexico. It is also increasingly militarizing the police forces in urban and rural areas and is brutalizing the people of color who live there. We know that all this repression has the same root and the same purpose: to maintain U.S. economic control, and to concentrate wealth in even fewer hands. Challenges to this anti-people model - especially those rising from democratic processes and civil society - are a tremendous threat to U.S. control in the region. We support the peaceful resolution of differences in our personal lives, in our communities, in our nation and in the world. We condemn the actions of the United States government that increase economic and social inequality, undermine democratic institutions, and fund police and military violence. We uphold the right to self-determination and national sovereignty. The nations and peoples of the hemisphere have the right to pursue self-government free of external military and economic pressures. We who live in the United States must realize the responsibility of the U.S. government in creating and maintaining inequality in the Americas. We must work to end all U.S. military aid and training to the region, to stop the blockade of Cuba, to end the continued colonial exploitation of Puerto Rico and its use as a giant military base from which invasions to other countries are rehearsed. We must say no to the U.S. viewing and using other countries as their backyard. We propose alternatives to the pro-company, anti-people economic model - alternatives that overcome repressive structures in our own countries, as well as the existence of the same structures elsewhere. We propose alternatives that include real community building, fair economics, and self-determination. Therefore, we oppose the so-called "war on drugs", Presidential fast track authority in trade negotiations, and NAFTA- style Free Trade Agreements between the U.S. and the other countries of the Americas. We call on people of conscience around the world to join us on September 29 in our protest against U.S. military and economic intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean. We are organizing a massive protest in Washington D.C. as part of the week of action against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. We call for people to organize local demonstrations on the same day. We are also coordinating with movements throughout Latin America and the Caribbean to make this an International Day of Action Against U.S. Military and Economic Intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean. Signed: Nicaragua Network CISPES(Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) NISGUA(Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala) Colombia Action Network Witness for Peace Latinos and Latinas for Social Change Chicago Nicaragua Solidarity Committee Guatemala Human Rights Commission - USA Rights Action Stop U.S. Intervention in Colombia The Colombia Action Network (CAN) is a national network of local activist groups fighting to stop U.S. intervention in Colombia and supporting progressive forces working for social justice within Colombia. We encourage everyone to use our activist resources and take up our campaigns. Resources, background info and up-to-date information is available on our website. Get in touch with us! Colombia Action Network www.actioncolombia.org actioncolombia@hotmail.com 612-872-0944 #WashingtonDC #AntiwarMovement #Colombia #Cuba #ElSalvador #Honduras #Americas #Bolivia #IMF #Statement #FTAA #freeTrade #PlanColombia #WorldBank #InternationalBank #SchoolOfTheAmericas div id="sharingbuttons.io"/div]]> On Sept. 29, an important demonstration will take place in Washington D.C. In conjunction with the protests surrounding the meeting of the International Monetary Fund, thousands will raise their voices against U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean. What follows is a reprint of the call to the protest. We urge the readers of Fight Back! to build for, and attend the demonstration.

Join tens of thousands in Washington DC on Saturday, September 29 to say:

  • No to Plan Colombia
  • No to the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas)
  • U.S. Bases out of Vieques and all of Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Close the School of the Americas / WHISC
  • Stop the Direct Assault Against People of Color and the Poor in the Americas through the Phony War on Drugs

The U.S. government is continuing its legacy of intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean by imposing pro-corporate, anti-people economic policies, by providing military aid and training to repressive governments, and attempting to crush any movements that support alternative models. We must stop these policies and stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers throughout the Americas. They are at the forefront of opposition to these policies, and are creating alternatives that place human need above corporate greed.

The U.S. government is using its armed forces to push through economic policies that only serve to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This war system works hand in hand with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. government is using the production of narcotics in the southern part of the American continent as an excuse to militarize the Americas. There are currently military bases in Cuba, Ecuador, and Puerto Rico and a strong military presence in Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru.

Current U.S. policy towards Colombia is a failed policy which is inflaming a violent conflict and contributing to increased human rights abuses. We call for an end to all military aid to Colombia and for an end to U.S. funding of fumigation in Colombia and the Andean region. We recognize that U.S.-funded fumigation of coca crops is destroying critical biodiversity throughout the Amazon region and is creating health and food security crises among the local populations. At the same time – with the excuses of the “drug war”, and “illegal” immigration – the U.S. has militarized its border with Mexico. It is also increasingly militarizing the police forces in urban and rural areas and is brutalizing the people of color who live there. We know that all this repression has the same root and the same purpose: to maintain U.S. economic control, and to concentrate wealth in even fewer hands.

Challenges to this anti-people model – especially those rising from democratic processes and civil society – are a tremendous threat to U.S. control in the region. We support the peaceful resolution of differences in our personal lives, in our communities, in our nation and in the world. We condemn the actions of the United States government that increase economic and social inequality, undermine democratic institutions, and fund police and military violence.

We uphold the right to self-determination and national sovereignty. The nations and peoples of the hemisphere have the right to pursue self-government free of external military and economic pressures.

We who live in the United States must realize the responsibility of the U.S. government in creating and maintaining inequality in the Americas. We must work to end all U.S. military aid and training to the region, to stop the blockade of Cuba, to end the continued colonial exploitation of Puerto Rico and its use as a giant military base from which invasions to other countries are rehearsed. We must say no to the U.S. viewing and using other countries as their backyard.

We propose alternatives to the pro-company, anti-people economic model – alternatives that overcome repressive structures in our own countries, as well as the existence of the same structures elsewhere. We propose alternatives that include real community building, fair economics, and self-determination. Therefore, we oppose the so-called “war on drugs”, Presidential fast track authority in trade negotiations, and NAFTA- style Free Trade Agreements between the U.S. and the other countries of the Americas.

We call on people of conscience around the world to join us on September 29 in our protest against U.S. military and economic intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean. We are organizing a massive protest in Washington D.C. as part of the week of action against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. We call for people to organize local demonstrations on the same day. We are also coordinating with movements throughout Latin America and the Caribbean to make this an International Day of Action Against U.S. Military and Economic Intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Signed:

Stop U.S. Intervention in Colombia

The Colombia Action Network (CAN) is a national network of local activist groups fighting to stop U.S. intervention in Colombia and supporting progressive forces working for social justice within Colombia. We encourage everyone to use our activist resources and take up our campaigns. Resources, background info and up-to-date information is available on our website. Get in touch with us!

Colombia Action Network

www.actioncolombia.org

actioncolombia@hotmail.com

612-872-0944

#WashingtonDC #AntiwarMovement #Colombia #Cuba #ElSalvador #Honduras #Americas #Bolivia #IMF #Statement #FTAA #freeTrade #PlanColombia #WorldBank #InternationalBank #SchoolOfTheAmericas

]]> https://fightbacknews.org/sept29dc Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:54:39 +0000 Central America Trade Vote Could Give Bush Defeat https://fightbacknews.org/cafta?pk_campaign=rss-feed <![CDATA[On the same day that George W. Bush declared, “I have earned political capital in the campaign, and I intend to spend it,” high-ranking administration officials said that Bush’s second term would bring a refocusing of energies on Latin America. In the first year of his second term, Bush hopes to pass the U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA, in an effort to gain passage of the full Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) by 2006. !--more-- The context of the attempts by the Bush administration to push these trade agreements is that of growing U.S. military intervention in the region, including efforts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela and increasing funding for Plan Colombia. The focus on trade gives progressive activists the opportunity to hand Bush the first major defeat of his new administration. The recent left victory in the Uruguayan presidential elections dealt a blow to the FTAA. The Chavez government in Venezuela, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio ‘Lula’ da Silva and, now, the government of Uruguay have all lined up against the FTAA. This makes CAFTA much more important for the U.S.’s bid to gain economic control of the Americas. It also means that a defeat on CAFTA could derail the entire FTAA process. The Bush administration began negotiating CAFTA two years ago, expecting little opposition in the U.S. or in Central America. However, they miscalculated. Workers, farmers, students, consumers and opposition political parties in Central America have come together with fair trade, labor and solidarity activists from the U.S. to organize resistance to the agreement. Sugar beet farmers in the upper Midwest and shrimpers in Louisiana have added their voices to this growing opposition. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout Central America have repeatedly marched against CAFTA and broader neo-liberal economic policies of free trade and privatization. Though opposition has been strongest in Central America, the greatest possibility for stopping CAFTA will be in the U.S. Congress. The Democratic Party has not historically opposed free trade agreements, unless they were seeking labor’s endorsement, and Kerry was very ambivalent in his statements about renegotiating CAFTA. This, along with the Republican victory, may cause some to think that the possibility of passing CAFTA has improved, but in fact a major fight remains. Many of the Democrats that are retiring or have been voted out were fierce free-traders - seven of the 21 Democrats that voted for Fast Track in 2001 will no longer be around. Also, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), a staunch opponent of CAFTA, will take over as the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee. The anti-CAFTA movement in the U.S. is united in stopping the seriously flawed agreement and has forced the congressional Democratic leadership into vowing opposition. The battle lines have been clearly drawn. The timing for a vote, however, remains in question. House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) stated last week that Republicans were still a few votes away and said, “It will be coming up when we have the votes to pass it.” To date, they do not have the votes. What is clear is that Bush is far from having a mandate, and that the growing movement against free trade now has the opportunity to mobilize the previously unorganized anti-Bush activists. When CAFTA was first proposed, very few people in the U.S. thought the plan could be defeated. When told this, numerous organizers in the Salvadoran movement stated, “We do not choose our battles based on what can be won; we choose our battles based on what the needs of our people are. We know that our struggle is just, and if we continue to organize for what is right, we will one day be victorious.” Three years later, activists from throughout the U.S. and Central America are about to do what many thought impossible - hand Bush and his cronies a defeat on CAFTA, and a major blow for the trade agenda. To get involved in the battle against CAFTA, contact the Stop CAFTA Coalition or the Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. Cherrene Horazuk is an expert on Latin America and former national director of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. #News #Americas #BushAdministration #FTAA #CAFTA #freeTrade div id="sharingbuttons.io"/div]]> On the same day that George W. Bush declared, “I have earned political capital in the campaign, and I intend to spend it,” high-ranking administration officials said that Bush’s second term would bring a refocusing of energies on Latin America. In the first year of his second term, Bush hopes to pass the U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA, in an effort to gain passage of the full Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) by 2006.

The context of the attempts by the Bush administration to push these trade agreements is that of growing U.S. military intervention in the region, including efforts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela and increasing funding for Plan Colombia.

The focus on trade gives progressive activists the opportunity to hand Bush the first major defeat of his new administration.

The recent left victory in the Uruguayan presidential elections dealt a blow to the FTAA. The Chavez government in Venezuela, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio ‘Lula’ da Silva and, now, the government of Uruguay have all lined up against the FTAA. This makes CAFTA much more important for the U.S.’s bid to gain economic control of the Americas. It also means that a defeat on CAFTA could derail the entire FTAA process.

The Bush administration began negotiating CAFTA two years ago, expecting little opposition in the U.S. or in Central America. However, they miscalculated. Workers, farmers, students, consumers and opposition political parties in Central America have come together with fair trade, labor and solidarity activists from the U.S. to organize resistance to the agreement. Sugar beet farmers in the upper Midwest and shrimpers in Louisiana have added their voices to this growing opposition.

Hundreds of thousands of people throughout Central America have repeatedly marched against CAFTA and broader neo-liberal economic policies of free trade and privatization. Though opposition has been strongest in Central America, the greatest possibility for stopping CAFTA will be in the U.S. Congress.

The Democratic Party has not historically opposed free trade agreements, unless they were seeking labor’s endorsement, and Kerry was very ambivalent in his statements about renegotiating CAFTA. This, along with the Republican victory, may cause some to think that the possibility of passing CAFTA has improved, but in fact a major fight remains. Many of the Democrats that are retiring or have been voted out were fierce free-traders – seven of the 21 Democrats that voted for Fast Track in 2001 will no longer be around. Also, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), a staunch opponent of CAFTA, will take over as the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee. The anti-CAFTA movement in the U.S. is united in stopping the seriously flawed agreement and has forced the congressional Democratic leadership into vowing opposition. The battle lines have been clearly drawn.

The timing for a vote, however, remains in question. House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) stated last week that Republicans were still a few votes away and said, “It will be coming up when we have the votes to pass it.” To date, they do not have the votes. What is clear is that Bush is far from having a mandate, and that the growing movement against free trade now has the opportunity to mobilize the previously unorganized anti-Bush activists.

When CAFTA was first proposed, very few people in the U.S. thought the plan could be defeated. When told this, numerous organizers in the Salvadoran movement stated, “We do not choose our battles based on what can be won; we choose our battles based on what the needs of our people are. We know that our struggle is just, and if we continue to organize for what is right, we will one day be victorious.” Three years later, activists from throughout the U.S. and Central America are about to do what many thought impossible – hand Bush and his cronies a defeat on CAFTA, and a major blow for the trade agenda.

To get involved in the battle against CAFTA, contact the Stop CAFTA Coalition or the Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.

Cherrene Horazuk is an expert on Latin America and former national director of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.

#News #Americas #BushAdministration #FTAA #CAFTA #freeTrade

]]> https://fightbacknews.org/cafta Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:29:18 +0000