Under US law the DR-CAFTA is congressional-executive agreement. While US law mandates that 2/3 of the senate majority must pass the treaties. Implementing this treaty became public law on August 2, 2005 when George Bush signed it. This treaty eliminates tariffs on 80 percent of the exports of the US and the rest will be eliminated within the decade. This plan also includes the construction of many new highways linking Panama City to Mexico City, Texas, and the rest of the US.
Many organizations feel NAFTA is in fact unconstitutional and were the source of much political debate. Free trade occurs when government does not interfere with trade. They feel CAFTA and other international trade agreements mean more government interference. NAFTA similarly removed tariffs from products and agriculture traded between the US, Canada, and Mexico, and the elimination of Tariffs within 14 years of the agreement. This is an expansion of the previous agreement held only with Canada in 1988. However some countries decided to set their own rules with outside parties like Mexico signed a NAFTA-plus treaty to include other countries into this plan.
One of the benefits in this agreement is the amount of trade between these countries has had a major increase in trade. Even though there has not been an increase in trade diversion. Also there is an increase in bi-lingual product labeling. One negative is that natural resources appear to become depleted sold as commodities like lake water from Canada. Many people were also scared that the treaty would make it possible to move their company to Mexico and take advantage of cheap labor. In reality unemployment in America has steadily decreased, so this is not having a definite impact on American unemployment.
A survey conducted showed that in general 64% of Canadians, 70% of Mexicans and only 47% of Americans thought the treaty had been good for their counties. The opponents of NAFTA include labor, environmental, consumer and some religious groups. These organizations argued that NAFTA would promote lower wages and destroy thousands of U.S. jobs, and threaten the health of our citizens, and environmental and food safety standards. The NAFTA promoters include many of the world’s largest corporations. They promised to create hundreds of thousands of new higher wage U.S. jobs, and raise the living standards in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. These large corporations also try and improve environmental conditions and transform Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for the U.S. exports.
Workers’ rights and working conditions in Mexico have not improved under NAFTA, despite the inclusion of labor provisions in this agreement. Also this treaty contributes to small farmers using more pesticides to increase their crops or going out of business and loosing out to the new world market prices which are much lower. Also it will have negative effects on workers, small farmers, and immigrant communities in the United States. Another reason why so many oppose is because it may Bankrupt millions of small farmers and deprive the people of Central America and the Dominican Republic of the ability to grow their own food. Another reason is Destroy small businesses, making them prey to large national and transnational corporations. Many activists also feel it will particularly hurt women who endure poverty wages and abusive treatment in the maquila sectors.
NAFTA promised free trade and investment agreements that were supposed to provide investors with a set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Although no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards and as a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in its own favor of investors and against workers and the environment, causing a decline in wages and in environmental quality.
Many claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. Similar claims are being made for CAFTA. These statements reflect claims that were made by the administration and by many economists more than a decade ago when NAFTA was first proposed. Promises about jobs and exports were misrepresented the effects of trade on the U.S. economy. Trade both supports and displaces jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in the United States, but increases in imports tend to displace jobs because the imports supplant goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers.
It seems that the negative effects out weigh the positive effects; some see the difference as slight, while others see this difference as major and have launched websites and other forums protesting these treatise. The benefits we end up with seem to be needed more than the outcome of the negative effects. Although Americans feel this does not benefit them, studies have shown that it actually is beneficial to the US and too many other countries in North and Central America.
Bibliography Page:
Resources
1.
2.
Also: , Wikepedia online encyclopedia
3. , Citizens organization
4. , economic policy institute
5. , St. Petersburg Times Online News
