Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)

[John S. Veteran]

NAFTA, CAFTA, they're all just paving the way for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Essentially this will eradicate the American borders and make us all one big happy country. Write it down, it's coming.

http://www.ftaa-alca.org/alca_e.asp

The effort to unite the economies of the Americas into a single free trade area began at the Summit of the Americas, which was held in December 1994 in Miami, U.S.A. The Heads of State and Government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to construct a Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated.

They agreed to complete negotiations towards this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the FTAA by 2000. The Heads of State and Government further directed their ministers responsible for trade to take a series of concrete initial steps to achieve the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Their decisions regarding these steps are contained in the Miami Summit's Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action.

This would explain Bush's reluctance to do anything about illegal immigration. It's not going to matter once this is in place.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

The Free Trade of the Americas better have a lot more teeth because the U.S. is walking all over NAFTA.

[John S. Veteran]

The Free Trade of the Americas better have a lot more teeth because the U.S. is walking all over NAFTA.

586386779[/snapback]

You're missing the whole point, it won't matter. There will be no US, no Mexico, no Canada, no South America. We'll be joined.

I know this sounds far-fetched, but the groundwork has been laid for many years through several administrations.

Some chilling info in this report by the CFR (Building a North American Community):

http://www.cfr.org/pub8102/independent_tas...n_community.php

[Fred Derf Veteran]

You're missing the whole point, it won't matter.  There will be no US, no Mexico, no Canada, no South America.  We'll be joined.

I know this sounds far-fetched, but the groundwork has been laid for many years through several administrations.

Some chilling info in this report by the CFR (Building a North American Community):

http://www.cfr.org/pub8102/independent_tas...n_community.php

586386844[/snapback]

You fear change. The doomsayers up here said that NAFTA would erode Canada's soveignty and turn us into a 51st state.

Free trade is, after all, the capitalist thing to do. Democrats are usually the ones that are protectionists (i.e. Senator Byrd).

[John S. Veteran]

You fear change.? The doomsayers up here said that NAFTA would erode Canada's soveignty and turn us into a 51st state.

Free trade is, after all, the capitalist thing to do.? Democrats are usually the ones that are protectionists (i.e. Senator Byrd).

586387397[/snapback]

I'm all for free trade, but this is about much so more. It's about erasing borders (from Victoria Island down to Panama). I provided the links to the info, whether you choose to read or ignore it is entirely up to you.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I'm all for free trade, but this is about much so more.  It's about erasing borders (from Victoria Island down to Panama).  I provided the links to the info, whether you choose to read or ignore it is entirely up to you.

586387630[/snapback]

I'm reading the link now (both the press release and the full document). It is... interesting. I don't know about the Mexicans and the Americans but some of the Canadians are high profile.

Basically we're talking about a lot of corporations that would love to get their hands on Mexican resources without government interference.

[John S. Veteran]

When I hear something wild like this I'm as skeptic as anyone. It sounds preposterous.

But when you look at the time they spent, the people involved coupled with the Bush and Clinton (not throwing stones in at any particular party) Administrations lack of interest towards illegal immigration, it makes you wonder about the possibility of it being accurate.

Thanks for being open-minded.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

When I hear something wild like this I'm as skeptic as anyone.  It sounds preposterous. 

But when you look at the time they spent, the people involved coupled with the Bush and Clinton (not throwing stones in at any particular party) Administrations lack of interest towards illegal immigration, it makes you wonder about the possibility of it being accurate.

Thanks for being open-minded.

586387996[/snapback]

I can see why the business community would be interested. I could potentially see how the Mexican population would be interested. Only another 9/11-style attack could make the US population interested and I can't imagine why the Canadian public would be at all interested. I can't imagine this going beyond the think-tank stage.

Essentially we are talking about globalism here, the very opposite of nationalism. I think the populations of these three countries are still far too nationalistic to consider anything like this seriously.

[dreamz Veteran]

NAFTA, CAFTA, they're all just paving the way for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).  Essentially this will eradicate the American borders and make us all one big happy country.  Write it down, it's coming.

586386748[/snapback]

not sure about happy. it's going to facilitate the us-led exploitation of those other countries.

[Starcom826]

not sure about happy.  it's going to facilitate the us-led exploitation of those other countries.

586390165[/snapback]

Free trade is never exploitation by one country. The other nations you deal with must agree, and only corporations win. If there really was US exploitation, that implies that we actually benefit from it, while we in fact are running massive trade deficits. The businesses on both sides benefit of course, not that any people (barring the CEOs of huge corporations) or countries do.

[dreamz Veteran]

Free trade is never exploitation by one country.  The other nations you deal with must agree, and only corporations win.  If there really was US exploitation, that implies that we actually benefit from it, while we in fact are running massive trade deficits.  The businesses on both sides benefit of course, not that any people (barring the CEOs of huge corporations) or countries do.

586393613[/snapback]

it's only certain parties that really benefit, while others are marginalized, and considering how certain countries (e.g. the latin american countries in cafta) are weak, it paves the way for exploitation.

as an economist, i've studied the models for free trade, and while they work in many cases, free trade isn't a panacea.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8175

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8036

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8027

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4919

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their view and that worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization:

* the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power) per day has halved in only twenty years [1], although some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied [2].

* life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world [3]. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing [4].

* Democracy has increased dramatically from no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000 [5].

* Worldwide, the proportion of the world's population living in countries where per capita food supplies are under 2,200 [calories per day] was 56 percent in the mid-1960s, compared to below 10 percent by the 1990s.

* Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52 percent to 81 percent of the world. And women have made up much of the gap: Female literacy as a percentage of male literacy has increased from 59 percent in 1970 to 80 percent in 2000.

* There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita as well as the percentage of the population with access to clean water [6].

However, not all those improvements may be due to globalization alone.

(all of the above quoted text is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism )

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Well, I asked my dad about it. He gave a speech on this last year in Phoenix.

Yes, the plans are ambitious but if it is implemented in small steps then people won't see it happening fast enough to complain about it.

Of course it would require the synronization of policies with respect to immigration, refugees, the war on drugs, etc...

Some of those steps will be harder to swallow than others.

Edit: It wasn't a speech, he was part of a panel discussion.

[emel]

wont this be like EU?.. because after all of this US corps. wont be happy if Mexican workers are protected by minimum salary , disability benefit or something like that..

[Fred Derf Veteran]

wont this be like EU?.. because after all of this US corps. wont be happy if Mexican workers are protected by minimum salary , disability benefit or something like that..

586435623[/snapback]

It is being considered on the basis of security. The only land region that would need to be patrolled would be the southern border of Mexico (Guatemala, Belize). Everything else would be handled by the Coast Guard or airport security.

[vincent]

North america w/no boreers would be awesome, a world with no borders will be heaven :happy:

[dreamz Veteran]

North america w/no boreers would be awesome, a world with no borders will be heaven :happy:

586435663[/snapback]

not necessarily. big corporations may be able to re-write certain laws, etc. to increase profits at the expense of the poor and working classes.

[vincent]

not necessarily.  big corporations may be able to re-write certain laws, etc. to increase profits at the expense of the poor and working classes.

586435705[/snapback]

doh! :pinch:

[R-Flex]

While I do not approve of the economic outcome of such an agreement, nor do I believe that Canadians would do it, I like the idea of no borders.

When I was in the EU a few months ago, I was amazed by the lack of borders. But again, Canadians would definitely be against it.

[....]

Interesting. One money in Europe, one world happening over here. :ninja:

[Starcom826]

The no borders thing in the EU is really up to discretion apparently. While I was in Europe, France reinstated border control, although all it basically was was officers just waving at motorists as they drove right on through.

[....]

The no borders thing in the EU is really up to discretion apparently.  While I was in Europe, France reinstated border control, although all it basically was was officers just waving at motorists as they drove right on through.

586449483[/snapback]

Border control is essentially dead in Europe, that's true.

[John S. Veteran]

Sounds like it's all coming together

[....]

:yes:

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Canadians will likely be the most opposed to it out of the three.

It could place our social programs under threat and we would need to change our immigration/refugee policies to match the US and Mexico.

In don't think there is much of a security concern in the minds of Canadians thus taking away one of the key factors in this approach's favour.