Abstract
The U.S. president signed on CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) in Aug. 2, 2005. He mentioned lots of advantages from CAFTA, but many people are against CAFTA. People think that CAFTA will bring many serious problems, such as losing jobs. This paper disagrees with CAFTA, and I mention lots of problems. CAFTA makes NAFTA problems more serious. And many workers can lose their jobs; also, it is harmful to many industries, such as manufacturing jobs and agriculture jobs. The U.S. government should think about the solutions for CAFTA problems, and they have to make sure of the reason we have to agree with CAFTA.
CAFTA-DR stands for Central American – Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement; Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua are included in CAFTA. And Central America and the Dominican Republic is the second largest export region (Wisconsin State Journal, 2005). The U.S. president agreed to CAFTA-DR on August 2, 2005. “CAFTA would bring new investment that means good jobs and higher labor standards for their workers” (Bush, 2005, par. 3) and “CAFTA would create a more level playing field” (par. 4). Also he said, “CAFTA would bring the stability and security that can only come from freedom” (par. 5). He mentioned lots of benefits of CAFTA and he signed on it. In addition, CAFTA will increase Central American economics, and it reduces barriers (ITA, n.d.).
However, many people disagree with CAFTA, because they think that CAFTA will bring lots of problems. The problem is that the U.S. family farmer will have damages; also, Birns (2005) said that CAFTA causes the U.S. workers to lose their jobs, because the U.S. businesses want to use cheap labor in Central America. And it is harmful to many industries, such as manufacturing jobs, agricultural jobs, and textile jobs. People think that it is just problems of the U.S.; it is really big problems for Central American countries, too.
I think CAFTA will cause lots of damages to the U.S. and Central America. The president of the U.S. cannot think of the two sides of CAFTA. He thinks about advantages of CAFTA, but many people cannot agree with him. This is because of NAFTA problems, and also because they cannot believe what Bush said. I think the president already agreed to CAFTA-DR, but he should think about some problems and find solutions. The U.S. government cannot make the same problems as NAFTA; they have to make sure that everyone agrees with CAFTA. I know they cannot cancel it; they have to make solutions so that people can agree with CAFTA.
First, we can see lots of similarity between CAFTA and NAFTA. They are free trade agreements, and the U.S. president agreed with these negotiations while he was thinking just of advantages of NAFTA and CAFTA. CAFTA makes NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, problems more serious. Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are included in NAFTA, and the U.S. agreed on it in the early 1990s. It caused many problems; that is why people are worried about CAFTA. NAFTA and CAFTA are similar negotiations, so people think that CAFTA will bring similar problems with NAFTA.
When Bill Clinton agreed with NAFTA, he said that NAFTA would make lots of jobs, but he was wrong. In the U.S., they lost more than 879,280 jobs (Texas Farmers Union, n.d.). Also, G. W. Bush spoke of similar advantages to what B. Clinton said. People don’t believe what G. W. Bush said, because he made the same promise as B. Clinton, but they already knew Clinton couldn’t keep his promise.
According to Morong (2005), in 1994, when the U.S. agreed with NAFTA, there were 17 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S., but it has fallen down by 3 million, so it was 14.3 million in 2001. It is a really big number; also, we can imagine how many people have lost their jobs. I think CAFTA will make that problem of unemployment more serious. “CAFTA has more in common with NAFTA than just sharing a similar name. It is based in the same premises and same promises as its older sister agreement” (Texas Farmers Union, n.d. par. 8). The Texas Farmers Union also mentioned, “CAFTA would be destined to bring us the same results as NAFTA: fewer jobs for Texans and an increased international trade deficit” (par. 9). NAFTA made lots of problems, and CAFTA is similar cooperation with NAFTA. I think CAFTA will bring serious damage like NAFTA.
Also, NAFTA caused damage to farmers. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, when B. Clinton agreed with NAFTA, he promised that would make 54,000 agricultural jobs, but they lost about 16,000 agricultural jobs in the U.S. (AFL-CIO, 2005). When G. W. Bush signed CAFTA, he said the same thing as B. Clinton said. That is the why people worried about CAFTA. If Clinton had kept his promises, people would believe Bush’s opinion that CAFTA will bring lots of advantages. But it was not true, so people cannot believe CAFTA will be helpful.
Second, many people who live in the U.S. will lose their jobs because of CAFTA. CAFTA is not good to improve human rights. CAFTA nations people are kind of poor and most people have job that are very low-paying and are in unsafe places. The U.S. companies will use them, because they are cheaper than people in the U.S. In that case, the U.S. people will lose their jobs. “CAFTA does not place any pressure on Central American nations or the Dominican Republic to pass tougher environmental laws or even enforce those already in place” (Sanderson, 2005, par. 8). In addition, many kinds of U.S. businesses want to use cheap labor in CAFTA nations, and already Central America products entered the U.S. without tariffs. They don’t need negotiation about free trade, because it will make more problems. Also, Birns said, “CAFTA countries today can freely export to the U.S. at no or very low tariffs and already are the second-largest U.S. export destination in Latin America, receiving $15 billion of the U.S. exports…” (2005, par. 7).
Especially, this problem will be more harmful to African Americans. There are lots of African Americans in manufacturing jobs. But CAFTA will make many manufacturing jobs disappear, and then many African Americans will lose their jobs (Lee & Shelton, 2005). “(B)lack men and women are now much more likely to be displaced from long-tenure, good-paying jobs than their white counterparts” (Lee & Shelton, 2005, par. 3). I think African Americans do more hard work than others, but they cannot make lots of money. CAFTA makes that they lose their jobs; also, they cannot make money.
Third, CAFTA will damage farmers. CAFTA nations have better and cheaper vegetables, so if these vegetables will come into the U.S., farmers have big damages. And it is not just the U.S.; it will be big disadvantages in Mexico. For example, NAFTA obliterated 1.7 million agribusinesses in Mexico, and CAFTA will make this problem more serious than NAFTA (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2005). People believe that NAFTA made a big problem, and CAFTA will make the same problem as NAFTA.
However, the U.S. farmers will get problems, because of Central America, but it is not good for Central America farmers, either. “Farmers in Costa Rica, Nicaragua and other nations will be forced to produce at full capacity in an effort to survive and over time will not be able to compete with big agribusiness flooding these markets with cheap goods” (Sanderson, 2005, par. 4). CAFTA will bring lots of problems to both the U.S. and Central American countries.
Also, especially people who are against CAFTA mention the sugar industries. The U.S. sugar industries will all be damaged, because CAFTA will increase sugar prices (Sparshott, 2005). Up to 16 states are growing sugar cane, and 7 of these states were against CAFTA in the Senate on June 30. According to J. Sparshott, “Imperial is a lonely voice in supporting CAFTA in an industry that almost unanimously opposes the pact. The company is not owned or operated by sugar cane or sugar beet farmers and would benefit from some additional imports” (2005, par. 12). In addition, people said that CAFTA would hurt textile industries. According to Birns (2005), CAFTA will help China’s cheap textiles come to the U.S. It is a big problem for textile industries. CAFTA will bring lots of damages for many industries; how can people agree with CAFTA?
In conclusion, the U.S. had lots of problems from NAFTA. People don’t want to have the same problems. They believe that CAFTA will bring the same problem as NAFTA, or CAFTA will bring more serious problems than NAFTA. “After NAFTA was implemented in 1994, U.S. farmers, ranchers and food producers suffered job loss, stagnant or rapidly worsening trade flows, falling prices and revenues, declining incomes and a long string of failed promises…” (AFL-CIO, 2005, par. 2).
CAFTA has lots of problems, and it makes many employees lose their jobs. Also, farmers and Central America and the Dominican Republic employees will get a big problem. According to the article, “CAFTA would only extend to Central America the disastrous job loss and increasing inequality caused by NAFTA” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2005, par. 7). I think CAFTA will make the U.S. and Central American people lose their jobs, and cause big damages to industries.
The president of the U.S. agreed with CAFTA, but he has to recognize that CAFTA has lots of problems. CAFTA will have benefits, but there are fewer of them than disadvantages. The government should make an effort to find a good solution so that people who are against CAFTA can agree with CAFTA. “Forty percent of Central America’s workers earn less than $2 a day and workers’ rights are routinely abused. CAFTA does absolutely nothing to protect workers’ fundamental human rights” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2005, par. 16). The U.S. government cannot make the same problem as NAFTA anymore; they should think about that carefully and they have to keep the promises that they made, such as increasing jobs and raising human rights. I want the U.S. government to find solutions, so CAFTA will be useful to the U.S. industries and jobs. The U.S. government should make sure of the reason we have to accept CAFTA.
Bibliography
AFO-CIO. (2005, Jun. 12). CAFTA: a bad deal for farmers. America’s Union Movement. Retrieved from
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/globaleconomy/ns06072005.cfm, Sep. 27, 2005.
Birns, L. (2005, Jun. 3). CAFTA and its discontents. La Prensa San Diego. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Aug. 25, 2005. pp. 1, 8.
Bush, G. W. (2005, May 12). President discusses CAFTA-DR. White House. Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/print/20050512.html, Sep. 13, 2005.
International Trade Administration (ITA). (n.d.). Welcome to the CAFTA-DR gateway. U.S. government. Retrieved from
http://www.ita.doc.gov/cafta, Sep. 27, 2005.
Lee, B. & Shelton, H. (2005, Sep. 26). CAFTA is a bad deal for African Americans. The Hill. Retrieved from
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/072105.html, Sep. 27, 2005.
Morong, C. (2005, May 4). NAFTA and job losses. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/NAFTA.htm, Sep. 26, 2005.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (2005, May 29). Say no to CAFTA. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 14, 2005. p. J-2.
Sanderson, C. (2005, Aug. 1). CAFTA is bad deal for all workers. Deseret Morning News. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 14, 2005.
Sparshott, J. (2005, July 11). Sugar industry fights CAFTA agreement. The Washington Times. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 14, 2005.
Texas Farmers Union. (n.d.). CAFTA: bad for Texas and bad for USA workers. Retrieved from
http://www.texasfarmersunion.org/cafbadfortex.html, Sep. 26, 2005.
Would CAFTA benefit U.S. businesses, workers? Briefing on CAFTA. (2005, Jun. 1). Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 6, 2005, p. 10.
