Central American Free Trade Agreement Bill

[Emsworth]

Central American Free Trade Agreement Bill

1. The Senate hereby approves the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement entered into on August 5, 2004 with the Governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions, and enforce such regulations, as may be necessary to implement the provisions of the Agreement.
3. This Act shall have effect only with respect to those countries which have ratified or approved the Agreement, and which continue to comply with its provisions.

Sponsor: The President pro tempore

[Emsworth]

I would like to thank the President pro tempore for graciously introducing this bill on my behalf. The agreement referred to in this act is the real-life CAFTA, negotiations for which were completed in 2004.

[Defarge]

I have always been unsure of my stance on trade.  I shall look to the debates, if any, to decide my vote.  However, should both sides be equal, I'll vote against, simply because protectionism is my gut reaction.

[Ebowed]

I announce my opposition to this bill.  I don't like the idea of poor people in developing countries being exploited more than they are now, at the expense of more unemployment here at home.  I don't think our government should condone this with such an agreement.

[True Democrat]

I am in full support of this bill.

[MasterJedi]

I am also in full support of this bill.

[PBrunsel]

Since I am no longer a crazy protectionist "America First" man, I will support this bill.

[Q]

Since I am an "Atlasia First" man, I will not support this bill.

[Colin]

Since America firsters suck and I would never vote against any sort of free trade proposal unless it is heinously against American interests I am fully in favour.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have always tended to take a pragmatic view over trade; if a free trade agreement does not work for the interests of Atlasian manufacturers or their workforce I would find it hard, no, impossible to vote in favour of it.
But at the same time, if the agreement, on balance, works to the advantage of our manufacturers and our workers then I would most likely support it.
As such I would like to see some details of the agreement read out on the Senate floor

[Bono]

I'm glad both senators from the southeast expressed their total oposition to this surrender of our sovereignty.

[Colin]

Okay I take back what I said before. I will support this only if it's renamed CAFTizzle.

[DanielX]

I nominally support this bill. Some parts of the treaty aren't great, but I'd rather trade more with Central America then, say, China.

[Defarge]

In the absence of any substantial debate, I will vote nay on this bill.

[Colin]

Well I believe that it would be beneficial to all the Senators if the Vice President or the Secretary of State would present before this Senate the full text of the agreement being voted upon.

[Emsworth]

The agreement is quite long, but if anyone wants to peruse it, he may find it here. I will, however, summarize the most important points for the Senate's benefit:

The main provision in CAFTA is the permanent elimination or phase-out of tariff barriers between the United States and several Central American countries. A vast majority of Central American goods can already be imported into the United States tariff-free as a result of an Act of Congress passed in 2000. However, this act will expire in 2008. CAFTA makes the tariff eliminations and phase-outs permanent.

The second most-important provision is that CAFTA allows foreign investment in the public sector. American companies will be allowed to invest in government-run industries in Central America. Furthermore, foreign investment will be protected by honoring copyrights, trademarks, and patents.

[Ebowed]

I think signing free trade agreements with countries with unfair laws, wages, and questionable practices is not in the best interests of Atlasia, even if it does expand freedom for corporations.  Many proponents of CAFTA during the U.S. Senate debate said it would give us cheap labor.  If that means labor where the employees are paid miniscule amounts of money per day, that's not the sort of thing we should condone.  I think we should encourage fair practices over cheap labor.

[Emsworth]

I think signing free trade agreements with countries with unfair laws, wages, and questionable practices is not in the best interests of Atlasia, even if it does expand freedom for corporations.  Many proponents of CAFTA during the U.S. Senate debate said it would give us cheap labor.  If that means labor where the employees are paid miniscule amounts of money per day, that's not the sort of thing we should condone.

I would respectfully disagree. I don't think that it is the business of the Atlasian government to try to change labor practices in other countries. Rather, the chief concern of the government should be to expand freedom in our country. The policies of governments in other nations should not be allowed to restrict the liberty of the Atlasian People.

[Ebowed]

The policies of governments in other nations should not be allowed to restrict the liberty of the Atlasian People.

I beg to disagree.  The policies of another government are an excellent reason to restrict the abilities of Atlasian corporations.  I see no reason to sign trade agreements with nations that have atrocious wage laws or don't prohibit, for example, child labor.  Let's look at a hypothetical example.  Would you support an FTA with a country that has no laws against child pornography?  I know I wouldn't.

[Emsworth]

I see no reason to sign trade agreements with nations that have atrocious wage laws or don't prohibit, for example, child labor.  Let's look at a hypothetical example.  Would you support an FTA with a country that has no laws against child pornography?  I know I wouldn't.

Child labor and child pornography are violations of the rights of children. However, a low wage, voluntarily accepted by the worker, is not. It may be unfair, but it is not coercive, or violative of human rights like child pornography is.

I would also note: Atlasia itself has no minimum wage laws at all. Therefore, it strikes me as somewhat exceptional for us to restrict trade with another country on the basis of their wage laws.

[Ebowed]

A low is rarely voluntarily accepted by the worker.  If they dispute it, they'll just be ignored or lose their job.  It's not voluntary acceptance; they have to accept it.

Who is to say that unfair wages aren't a violation of human rights?  Paying people less than a dollar an hour for sweatshop work sounds like that to me.

Atlasia had federal minimum wage laws; the Supreme Court just found them unconstitutional.  The Northeast is working on theirs; Pacific Governor John Ford also promised to establish a $7.00 minimum wage in his region.  Hopefully more gets done in that regard, but just because of the Supreme Court decision, that does not mean we should start making deals with all of these countries with ridiculous wage laws.

[Emsworth]

A low wage is rarely voluntarily accepted by the worker.  If they dispute it, they'll just be ignored or lose their job.  It's not voluntary acceptance; they have to accept it.

It is indeed voluntary, insomuch as the government does not compel them to accept it. Their acceptance is predicated purely on their own wants and desires, not on the force of law or coercion by the government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I beg to disagree. I would argue that human rights are essentially liberties or freedoms--the right to own property, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and so forth--without restriction by the government. I think that human rights do not include positive "entitlements." There is, I think, no "right to work for a minimum wage." In fact, it is a minimum wage which is opposed to fundamental rights, because it prevents individuals from entering into contracts voluntarily and without governmental coercion.

[Ebowed]

It is indeed voluntary, insomuch as the government does not compel them to accept it. Their acceptance is predicated purely on their own wants and desires, not on the force of law or coercion by the government.

I'm not stupid, Mr. Vice President.  I think you are aware that humans have emotions other than "Work, get money, go home."  Someone voluntarily accepts their wage, yes; but pretend they did complain about it.  What would happen?  It would just get ignored, or they'd lose their job.  People accept their wages out of fear, not because they're satisfied with the wages.  (I'm referring to strictly a low-end job here.)

I beg to disagree. I would argue that human rights are essentially liberties or freedoms--the right to own property, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and so forth--without restriction by the government. I think that human rights do not include positive "entitlements." There is, I think, no "right to work for a minimum wage." In fact, it is a minimum wage which is opposed to fundamental rights, because it prevents individuals from entering into contracts voluntarily and without governmental coercion.

Violating one's right to own property or freedom of speech is a violation of civil liberties, not human rights.

[Emsworth]

I'm not stupid, Mr. Vice President.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise. But if I did, then I would apologize.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then I suppose we would have to agree to disagree about the purpose of government. My personal view is that the government should not go about coercing employers and employees by restraining the liberty of contract.

In any event, I should point out that CAFTA includes a provision requiring a country to enforce its labor laws (which is often not done in Central America, as you suggest, but the countries in question would face fines for failing to comply).

Violating one's right to own property or freedom of speech is a violation of civil liberties, not human rights.

I would not differentiate between the two, but it is only a matter of semantics.

[Ebowed]

In any event, I should point out that CAFTA includes a provision requiring the enforcement of labor laws. I would not necessarily favor such a provision, but it is, after all, a concession to protectionists.

Maybe I'd be convinced that this provision did anything if proponents of CAFTA were not advertising that it will give us "cheap labor."