Thanks, NYTimes

Sunday's New York Times has a story about the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) from the perspective of farmers and laborers in Central America. The gist: For a couple of decades now, Central American countries have been able to export many goods to the U.S. basically tarriff-free under the Carribean Basin Initiative. These trade preferences have been renewed by Congress more or less routinely. CAFTA makes these preferences permanent, plus opens up Central American markets to U.S. exporters. Central American countries apparently gain virtually nothing from CAFTA; but the implicit threat from Congress and the Bush Administration was that if they didn't agree to CAFTA, they'd lose their old trade preferences. So what do the Central American countries have to give up for CAFTA? Well, they have to open up their agricultural markets to U.S. agribusiness, which is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. So whereas, according to the article, it costs about as much to produce a ton of rice in the U.S. as in Central America, the subsidies given to U.S. rice producers will give U.S. rice a price advantage, driving Central American rice farmers out of business. Central American pharmaceutical companies will face new restrictions on their ability to make generic versions of American drugs. The treaty opens the telecommunications markets in Central America, preventing state-owned telecommunications companies from providing subsidized service. Meanwhile, the U.S. will continue to protect its own vulnerable industries like sugar and textiles from competition from Central American countries. In other words, it's a one-sided deal that is being shoved down the throats of our "neighbors" in Central America.



O.k., two points. One: Arizona and New Mexico have declared states of emergency because of the flood of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Suppose CAFTA allows a flood of U.S. agricultural products into Central America, driving tens of thousands of farmers into poverty and off their land. Where do you think they'll go? Doesn't anyone realize that the first component of a sensible immigration policy is to provide security and a strong economy to the rural population of Mexico and Central America?



Second: before the U.S. Congress voted in favor of CAFTA and the president signed the bill, I looked in vain for some balanced analysis of the pros and cons of the treaty in the New York Times. The Times editorialized in favor of the treaty. Now they deign to tell us why CAFTA has generated such opposition in Central America? Thanks!