Amy,
Sorry I did not get a chance to introduce myself to you at the DR-CAFTA conference on Friday. I know you had a tight deadline to meet but let me point out a few points you may wish to consider in any follow up stories.
1) The 90 people in the room were not mostly local business people and I suspect you can confirm this from the registration records. My rough approximation for the make-up of the room was, 1/3rd government officials, 1/3rd educators and students and 1/3rd private sector workers; only some of which were representing their businesses. Some readers of the Observer might be left with the mistaken impression that this was strictly a group of businessmen the majority of whom were in agreement with DR-CAFTA.
2) The correct title to the agreement is now DR-CAFTA to include the Dominican Republic. This is confusing for all of us who have been following the legislation, but thatfs the acronym we have to deal with now.
3) It is a disappointment that the majority of those talking about the agreement have not even read it even though the final version is freely available on line: http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/DR-CAFTA/DR-CAFTA_Final_Texts/Section_Index.html
4) The statement that the current DR-CAFTA cannot be changed before a vote in Congress is correct, which begs the question, "Why let our representatives in Congress off the hook on their quoted positions with statements like, I am undecided until I see the final agreement." Congress knows full well they gave the executive branch fast track trade authority. They only have one option: "Yes or No." Not, "Ifm waiting for changes."
It is particularly disconcerting that business people at the dais promoting the agreement had also not read the document. I am sure they do not enter into contracts in their own businesses without at least having their OWN legal council review important legally binding documents.
Christopher Padilla was also less than honest in proclaiming this agreement to be different than NAFTA and not a threat to US sovereignty. Again, to understand this, all that is required is a simple reading of the actual agreement. For example - under the Labor chapter:
Article 16.1: Statement of Shared Commitment
1. The Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization
(ILO) and their commitments under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights
at Work and its Follow-Up (1998) (ILO Declaration).1 Each Party shall strive to ensure that
such labor principles and the internationally recognized labor rights set forth in Article 16.8 are
recognized and protected by its law. (Notes: 1) The ILO is wholly controlled by the United Nations - not the US Congress. 2) Shall, like the Bible, means MUST in these documents)
Also, contrary to Mr. Padilla's protestations, the trade tribunals set up per DR-CAFTA are almost identical to NAFTA. These are the tribunals which last year former Congressman Abner Mikva said had they known about them Congress would have never passed NAFTAcbecause of the obvious impact of creating a court that could overrule the Supreme Court of the United States. That is, there is certainly a sovereignty issue here. Here is the New York Times article with the Kerry quote among others: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/politics/18COUR.html?ex=1397620800&;en=13814425a12bc791&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
As for the political merger aspect, this last November the Wall Street Journal called it "weaving the hemisphere together politically"
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=wall+street+journal+samor+ftaa&;ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=www.citizenstrade.org/pdf/wsj_ftaathreatened_11162004.pdf&w=wall+street+journal+samor+ftaa&d=C967D0A142&icp=1&.intl=us
I realize that the John Birch Society "Get US out of the UN" slogan skews many peoplefs opinion on where our opposition to these agreements comes from, but I can assure you that the NYT and WSJ are not press organs of the JBS.
I am actively involved on a daily basis with groups throughout NC and SC working with Congress to defeat passage of DR-CAFTA and the FTAA --- on the grounds of protecting national sovereignty and avoiding submission to UN governance bodies. WE ARE SUPPORTERS OF FREE TRADE; that is why we are against these deceptively named agreements -- which we claim, upon ample documentation, are building an EU model for the Americas.
I would be happy to answer any other technical questions you may have about DR-CAFTA and the FTAA. Additional information can also be found at www.stoptheftaa.org
Best Regards,
Jim Capo - State Coordinator, The John Birch Society
From the preamble chapter to the DR-CAFTA agreement:
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/DR-CAFTA/DR-CAFTA_Final_Texts/asset_upload_file308_3917.pdf
"CONTRIBUTE to hemispheric integration and provide an impetus toward establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas;"
