School of the Americas

CAFTA Lobbying

CAFTA Update

CAFTA: Labor and Environmental Standards

CAFTA: Tariffs and Protectionism in the United States

Military Aid to Colombia

Cuban Travel Ban

Venezuela

School of the Americas

Diana DeGette, Colorado Representative for Congressional District 1, has pledged to cosponsor legislation to close the School of the Americas. DeGette would become the 122nd cosponsor to H.R. 1258, the House Bill to repeal the statutory authority of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly the U.S. Army School of the Americas. DeGette pledged to support the legislation after meeting with six members of the SOA Legislative Action Committee of Regis University. DeGette had cosponsored several previous versions of legislation to close the SOA, and reiterated her commitment to investigating and closing its WHISC successor. Representative Mark Udall is the only other representative from Colorado to sign on as a cosponsor to the legislation. H.R. 1258 remains in the House Committee on Armed Services, with a vote anticipated later this year.

H.R. 1258 is a congressional bill to eliminate the School of the Americas, renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. The SOA/WHISC operates at the U.S. Army's Fort Benning, Georgia, where military and law enforcement personnel from throughout Latin America are trained in tactics including counterinsurgency and interrogation. Many of the SOA's graduates have gone on to commit human rights abuses and atrocities, waging war against the civilians of their own nations. WHISC was established in 2001 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and signed into law by President Clinton.

Contact Rep. Udall and Rep. DeGette to thank them for their support, and encourage Colorado’s other Representatives to close the SOA as well.

Legislative Contact Information

For more information on School of the America's and why it needs to be closed, visit School of the America's Watch at www.soaw.org

Resources for closing the School of the Americas:

     Click here for a sample letter supporting the close of the SOA

CAFTA Lobbying

 Four DJPC representatives were engaged in a lobbying effort against the Central American Free Trade Agreement during the Congressional recess this month. Visits were made to the four metro area representatives, Tom Tancredo, Mark Udall, Diana DeGette, and Bob Beauprez. Each representative will be given a summary of the issues surrounding CAFTA, and first-hand reports of how the trade agreement would negatively affect Guatemala and El Salvador from DJPC members Jane Covode and Harriet Mullaney.

Representative Tancredo has indicated his strong opposition to CAFTA, and that he will vote against the agreement if and when it comes before the House. Tancredo is the only metro area representative who voted against H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, the trade agreements with Chile and Singapore that CAFTA has been modeled after.

We met with staff members from Mark Udall's Washington office, and they indicated that they would study the issue further and bring the position of the DJPC to Rep. Udall's attention. Bob Beauprez was similarly unavailable to meet with personally, and a meeting was held with one of his constituent advocates, who promised to forward information on CAFTA to the trade aide in Washington.

A meeting was also held with Diana DeGette and her chief of staff. DeGette expressed her commitment to labor and environmental standards, and acknowledged a distinction between CAFTA and the earlier trade agreement that she had voted for.

Most of the Representatives and staff members we met with thought that it was unlikely CAFTA would be put to a vote before the election. They indicated that the issue of free trade was divisive, and unlikely to provide advantages in the election season. A vote on CAFTA immediately following the election, when accountability is lower, seems the most likely outcome.

Contact Senators and Representatives to voice your opposition to CAFTA.

CAFTA Update

At the final round of CAFTA negotiations in mid-December Costa Rica walked away from the table. The stable Central American nation cited concern over privatization in its telecommunication and insurance sectors, as well as medical costs, agriculture and intellectual property rights as reason for leaving the negotiations. Representatives from the Office of the US Trade Rep. have downplayed the failure to reach a comprehensive agreement stating that Costa Rica needed further time to negotiate and would hopefully restart negotiations with the US in January. Outside analysts predict the Costa Rican action will create a slowdown in the CAFTA process as well as slow the timetable of the FTAA, which is projected to complete negotiations by January 2005. As Central America's most stable country, economically and socially, Costa Rica possesses more relative capacity than other C.A. nations to stand up to the US on these though trade issues. Costa Rican trade officials said they would possibly return to negotiations in January 2004.

From January 12th to 16th US Trade Rep Robert Zoellick plans to hold the first of three rounds of talks with the Dominican Republic to discuss the possibility of the Dominican Republic joining CAFTA. The D.R. has the largest economy of all the countries in the Caribbean Basin region. The Office of the US Trade Rep. reports that the combined markets of the Dominican Republic and the Central American countries would create the largest US export market in Latin America after Mexico.

CAFTA is expected to come to Congress for an up or down vote sometime this spring. The fast track trade status means less debate on CAFTA in congress. Make CAFTA and free trade a campaign issue for the 2004 Presidential Election. Ask the tough questions of the candidates and President Bush. Candidate Rep. Dick Gephardt is quoted as saying President Bush was "selling out American workers with a bad trade deal".

Take action to support fair and equitable trade:

• Help to educate your Senators and US Representatives on the implications of the agreement. Speak out for fair agreements that raise labor standards and support transparent democratic processes.
• Make CAFTA an issue in the 2004 Presidential campaign, by holding the candidates accountable to issue important to you.

Click here for a sample letter

CAFTA: Free Trade and Non-Tariff Market Distortions and the need for common policy on Labor and Environmental Standards

April 2004

Common institutions as part of free trade

Free trade isn't just about lowering tariffs and promoting investment opportunities in foreign countries, though both are important. A true common market would have to do more than allow for the free movement of capital and goods. It needs common regulations, common institutions, and common economic standards to meet the conditions of a free market.

From subsidies to environmental regulations, there are a wide variety of non-tariff barriers to trade between nations, many of which are in place for very good reasons. The protections of a minimum wage would not normally be discussed in trade negotiations, but a floor for wages is as much a barrier to free trade as a tariff or a quota. Most FTAs attempt to eliminate one set of barriers to trade while leaving others in place. The oft-cited benefits to free trade; increased productivity, rising standards of living, and increased competition, are all predicated on a truly free market existing after an agreement is put into effect. A case study of the flawed approach to free trade can be made of the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, a free trade pact between the United States and five Central American nations.

Asymmetrical markets under free trade agreements

CAFTA is based largely on the approach to trade of its NAFTA and Chile-Singapore predecessors. Nations agree to lower tariff barriers and open up domestic good and capital markets to foreign competitors. But CAFTA misses a slew of trade asymmetries dealing with labor rights, environmental regulations, health and safety codes, etc. While protections against virtual slavery, or poisons in food are warranted, they still have a trade distorting effect when nations do not agree to exactly what falls under each of these areas.

The United States maintains a myriad of labor laws, including a $5.15 minimum wage, regulations for overtime pay and numerous protections for unionization. Few regulations up to the United States standards are found in Central America, and those that are on the books are rarely enforced. El Salvador has been criticized for its lack of enforced labor standards by numerous organizations, and the government seems unlikely to change its lackadaisical approach to enforcement even if CAFTA is adopted. [i] The trade pact wouldn't require any higher standards of labor protections from Central America, merely that nations enforce the laws they already have on the books. [ii] The United States admirably recognizes other nations right to define their own labor laws, but differences in labor regulations in El Salvador and the United States make the trade environment less than free. Ideally, investment goes to the locations that are most productive, all other things being equal, sparking competition and a rise in productivity for all.

An example of how environmental regulations distort the free market can be taken from NAFTA. A Canadian firm, Methanex, produced the gasoline additive MTBE, which has begun leaking into groundwater in California. Gray Davis issued a regulation banning the additive, and Methanex sued claiming California was unfairly targeting its product with restrictions. [iii] Many critics point to this instance as indicative of the problems with dispute resolution and corporate free trade suits in NAFTA. Precisely the same mechanisms of Investor-State dispute settlement have been written into CAFTA under Article 10 Section B.

The problem isn't as much with specific mechanisms, or the control of corporations over states' sovereign abilities to ban what products they choose. The problem is the patchwork of environmental, health, labor and safety standards among trading partners. If Canada and Mexico had also banned MTBE, Methanex could not have sued. Investor-state disputes would be far less common if regulations were universal, and could not be argued as a single state's unfair regulation. Until there is some consensus as to what regulations are acceptable, and those regulations are standardized between trading partners, free trade will do more harm than good by maintaining unequal market conditions.

Free trade of labor, environmental and wage regulations

Instead of focusing on free trade of goods and capital, the United States could focus on free trade of institutions and regulations. If MTBE is a known pollutant, an international conference to ban the additive should be convened. If labor standards are too low in Central America, the U.S. ought to negotiate a rise in the minimum wage concurrently with drops in tariffs. Obviously Central American states are not soon going to be able to pay all workers $5.15 an hour. But important steps might be for the NAFTA/CAFTA nations to adopt the dollar as a common currency, at least allowing wages to be accurately compared, and a commitment from each government to raise the minimum wage each year, much as tariffs have been negotiated to fall annually.

Most, if not all, of the criticisms leveled at CAFTA would be addressed if common environmental and labor regulations were negotiated concurrently with common investment and import regulations. Free trade can be done in a way that minimizes market distortions and truly does benefit all people only if the United States broadens its vision of what free trade entails to include all the institutions necessary for common market conditions.

[i] “Deliberate Indifference: El Salvador's Failure to Protect Workers' Rights.” Human Rights Watch . Vol. 15, No. 5 (B). December 2003.

[ii] CAFTA Article 16.2

[iii] Andrew Duffy. “Canadians challenge California pollution rules under NAFTA.” The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec). October 27, 1999. A19.

CAFTA: Is the US unwilling to embrace Free Trade?

Tariffs and Protectionism in the United States.

April 2004

Listening to the free trade rhetoric of U.S. officials, one would conclude that the United States has perfected its policies of free trade, and the only thing left to do is bring other nations into line. Take the statement of Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative, that "CAFTA will give Americans better access to affordable goods and promote U.S. exports and jobs, even as it advances Central America's prospects for development, this FTA will reinforce free-market reforms in the region. The growth stimulated by trade and the openness of an agreement will help deepen democracy, the rule of law, and sustainable development." [i] The debate over free trade is too often seen as how the U.S. benefits from other nations forced to rid themselves of harmful trade barriers. But its important to remember that free trade involves mutual steps, and too often the steps the U.S. must take to reform its own market are forgotten.

The United States is no stranger to tariffs. Most recently, the Bush administration announced that its tariff on steel imports, established amidst claims of foreign dumping, would be overturned. The WTO ruled that such a tariff was illegal and violated American commitments to free trade. Or look at the recent debate over shrimp tariffs, as the Southern Shrimp Alliance requested the International Trade Association to levy duties of up to 93% on shrimp imports. Brazil and Ecuador are among the top five exporters of shrimp to the United States, and it seems ironic for the U.S. to pursue trade barriers against these states while simultaneously pushing the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement with them.

CAFTA itself has become something of an example of U.S. hypocrisy in free trade negotiations. Zoellick negotiated an agreement with the Dominican Republic that drops most tariffs on sugar imports from the nation, but also establishes strict quotas against imports to maintain the U.S. domestic market. Sugar import quotas for the signatories of CAFTA range from 12,000 to 32,000 metric tons a year, [ii] compared to domestic sugar production of nearly 11 million metric tons. [iii] Quotas are just one of the non-tariff barriers to trade still in place in the United States. Agricultural subsidies stand out as another barrier, for which domestic sugar subsidies amounted to 18 cents per pound in 2002.

The U.S. sugar industry already won exemption from the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, and may manage to wring further concessions from Washington policymakers before CAFTA goes up for adoption. While Zoellick emphasizes the need for free-market reforms in the rest of the hemisphere, the United States seems all too willing to forego reforms of its own when put under political pressure. This creates a very real possibility for CAFTA and other free trade pacts to become one sided, with the U.S. pressuring partners to drop barriers while refusing to drop its own. Exceptions to free trade have been proposed for steel, shrimp and sugar, just to name a few. And until the United States begins to take free trade seriously, as a mutual movement to freer markets, FTAs are little more than U.S. coercion to open foreign export markets. This approach offers few economic benefits to producers in Central America who must compete with protected U.S. industries, and furthermore hurts U.S. consumers by artificially inflating the price of protected goods.

The benefits of free trade will remain out of reach as long as the United States continues to make exceptions for domestic lobbies. Central America and US consumers will suffer together as a result of the protections allowed by CAFTA, and the treaty will remain indicative of a flawed U.S. approach to trade policy until this domestic exceptionalism is addressed.

[i] Ann Sacamano. “U.S. slates Central American free trade talks.” Journal of Commerce Online. January 14, 2003.

[ii] US TRQ Annex 1 Note 3. Central American Free Trade Agreement Draft Text. March 2, 2004.

[iii] 2001 Production or Receipts. Sugar, Cane And Beet (Refined): Stocks, Production Or Receipts, And Deliveries, Continental United States, 1993-2002. Agricultural Statistics, 2003. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Military Aid to Colombia

Colombian President Álvaro Uribe has reportedly asked for the U.S. to raise the number of military personnel and civilian contractors allowed in the country as part of Plan Colombia. The U.S. currently limits military personnel in the country at 400, and Uribe asked that limit be doubled. He made the request during a March 23 visit to Washington, and commented that he has received support for his proposal from both Senate Majority leading Bill Frist and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Such a change in policy would require Congressional approval.

In return, Uribe may send several hundred troops to Iraq. Colombia already has nearly 1000 troops stationed nearby in Egypt as part of a U.N. peacekeeping force, and part of that force may be redirected to Iraq.

Modifying U.S. military commitments to Colombia would require Congressional approval. The Latin American Working Group has said the change would be part of the 2005 Defense Authorization legislation. Debate on the bill is set to begin on May 21, and the DJPC has written letters to each of the representatives and senators explaining opposition to an increased U.S. presence. Alternative solutions to violence in Colombia were stressed, such as supporting fair prices for Colombian agricultural goods and aid for human rights groups.

Visit the Latin American Working Group Website at and sign a petition to cut U.S. military aid to Colombia - http://www.lawg.org/tools/petition.htm

Cuban Travel Ban

The travel ban against Cuba has continued to be enforced, targeting Hola Sun Holidays, a travel company based in Havana that offers travel to the island from Canada. The travel provider had allowed U.S. citizens to purchase tickets on its flights. On March 18 the Treasury Department announced that it was “designating” the company, indicating the Department's position that it is controlled by the Castro regime. Designation legally blocks U.S. citizens from having dealings with the company without prior consent from the U.S. government. The designation is considered part of the Bush Administration's crackdown on U.S. travelers to Cuba and an attempt to enforce the travel ban. A provision that would have overturned the ban on travel was removed from a transportation bill after Bush threatened a veto late last year. Fines against U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba have continued, as well as discouraging spending in Cuba and further depressing the island's economy.

Mexico and Peru both recalled their envoys from Cuba on May 3, with Mexico also requesting that Cuba withdraw its envoy from Mexico City. The Mexican government had cited Cuban interference in Mexican politics, and both countries expressed displeasure at Castro's May Day speech. Mexico had previously voted in favor of a United Nations resolution criticizing human rights abuses in Cuba. The United States had strongly supported that resolution, as part of an effort to maintain its embargo on the island.

The Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba has finished its report on policy recommendations to destabilize the Cuban government. The commission has worked for six months under the State Department. Potential policies leaked in advance of the completed document include a partial or total ban on remittances, and forcing Cuban-Americans traveling to the nation to adhere to baggage weight limits to avoid paying a fine upon arrival in Cuba. Both policies would deprive the Cuban government of hard currency. The deadline for completion of the report was May 1. The report had five sections, four of which dealt with ways to build democracy in Cuba after Castro, and one section that recommends steps to topple the regime. Legislation based on the Commissions recommendations will not be introduced until the release of the full report, expected to come within the next week.

Contact Senators and Representatives and let them know you support an end to the travel ban.

Venezuela

Legislative action on Venezuela may be forthcoming. Roger Noriega, Undersecretary for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, recently referred to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as “anti-democratic” in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Noriega had criticized Chavez's response to a petition drive supporting a recall referendum before the end of his term in 2006.

On March 1, the Venezuelan election council ruled that only 1.8 million of the 3.4 million signature submitted were valid, while another 800,000 may be validated with if citizens confirm their signatures. The electoral chamber of the Supreme Court has since ruled all disputed signatures were valid, and the constitutional chamber has overturned that ruling. Isaias Rodriguez, Attorney General for Venezuela, announced an investigation into “unethical behavior” for Magistrates Alberto Martini, Rafael Hernandez and Orlando Gravina, the three justices who voted to validate the signatures.

The Venezuelan election authority issued a ruling allowing the roughly 870,000 disputed signatures to be declared valid if citizens come forward to confirm their signatures during five days next month.

Noriega also explained during his testimony that the U.S. has an interest in a stable and democratic Venezuela, and stated that foreign assistance resources would be used to support democratic institutions, stronger political parties and democracy-related NGOs. Congressional appropriations legislation gives nearly a million dollars a year to Venezuela in the form of National Endowment for Democracy aid.

However, Eva Gollinger, an immigration lawyer from Brooklyn, has argued that these funds go to support opposition parties in Venezuela. The Endowment gave funds to the Civil Education Commission and the Primero Justicia party, each of which had a member who was asked to join a ruling junta during a failed 2002 coup attempt. Sumate, a Venezuelan group to promote political rights, has assisted in collecting and processing signatures for the recall drive, and has also received $50 thousand in funds from the NED this year.

Other legislation dealing with Venezuela, House Resolution 40, condemning political unrest and political leadership, and encouraging new elections in Venezuela, remains in the House Committee on Foreign Relations, with action unlikely during this year.