U.S. Economic Hegemony: Consolidation and Deepening of the Pacific Alliance Trade Bloc
Be Your Own Leader
August 22, 2013
By Dana Gabriel
In a short period of time, the Pacific Alliance has emerged as one of the leading economic integration projects in Latin America. It aims to succeed where others have failed by creating a gateway to Asian markets and building a Pacific-rim trade deal. The U.S. and Canada are both pursuing deeper ties with the group and have been granted observer status. This is part of efforts to revive and expand their presence in Latin America. In some areas of integration, the Pacific Alliance has surpassed NAFTA. By merging the two together, it could be used to fill the void left by the collapse of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
The Pacific Alliance was officially launched by Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru in June 2012. Its objectives include to construct, “an area of profound market-driven economic integration that will contribute to the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons.” The group also seeks to, “become a platform for economic and commercial integration as well as political coordination with global outreach, particularly towards the Asia Pacific.” A key requirement in joining the Pacific Alliance is to have free trade agreements with all existing member states. Costa Rica recently received approval to become a permanent member. Other countries have also shown interest with a growing number requesting observers status. The goal of the Pacific Alliance is to go beyond traditional free trade deals and pursue even more liberalized economic policies.
The May 23, 2013 Pacific Alliance Summit in Cali, Colombia marked the next steps in the consolidation and deepening of the Latin American trade bloc. The presidents of the four founding member countries agreed to remove tariffs on 90 percent of the goods traded between them and to gradually eliminate duties on the remaining 10 percent. They also adopted measures to begin visa-free travel between member states and moved closer towards full labor mobility. In addition, the leaders announced the creation of a cooperation fund and ratified agreements to open up joint embassies and trade offices in Asia and Africa. They also pledged to continue to deepen regional financial integration. The stock markets of Chile, Peru and Colombia have already been merged together and Mexico is expected to join them within the next year. While other Latin American countries are seeking to curb U.S. influence, Pacific Alliance members have shown a willingness to maintain and increase ties with Washington.
Just days after the Pacific Alliance Summit, Vice President Joe Biden met with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos where he praised the progress the economic bloc has made and also expressed interest in the U.S. joining as an observer country. On July 19, the Department of State announced U.S. participation as an observer in the group. While full membership may be far off, the U.S. is expanding cooperation with Alliance members. Over the years, there has been a steady erosion of U.S.-Latin American relations. Some analysts have pointed out that that both the U.S. and Canada’s grip on Latin America is loosening. This ties in with an article from Global Research which noted that the Obama administration is stepping up its strategy of regime change against the left-of-center governments in the region. The U.S. could use the Pacific Alliance as a means to recover political and economic influence in Latin America.
When Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended the Pacific Alliance Summit in May, it was expected that he would request full membership. Canada already achieved observer status back in November 2012. While Harper acknowledged their accomplishments, he said that it was too soon to decide whether Canada should join the trade bloc. During his trip, Harper also took the opportunity to meet with mining company executives. The Conservative government has been criticized for not putting enough emphasis on corporate accountability with regards Canadian mining operations in the region. Maude Barlow explained that, “The Pacific Alliance, like Canada’s existing trade and investment deals in Latin America, puts the profits of those companies above anything else. The deals, like the Alliance, have nothing to say about the environmental and human rights impact of mining in the region.” The Pacific Alliance appears to be another attempt to accelerate the privatization of natural resources. It goes against the efforts of some Latin American countries that have joined together to fight the growing problem of investor-state privileges found in NAFTA-style trade agreements. These rules allow foreign corporations to sue for any potential profit losses related to government policies.
A recent article by Eric Farnsworth advocated linking NAFTA with the Pacific Alliance. He recommended that the leaders from both trade groups, “should consider meeting to forge a pragmatic economic agenda for cooperation. This offers an important opportunity to kick-start a common agenda with willing partners that has languished since the FTAA.” Farnsworth also described how, “building out a NAFTA-Pacific Alliance economic relationship would improve the collective regional approach toward the Asia-Pacific region, which currently includes precisely the same Western Hemisphere nations within APEC and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations except Colombia. It would also offer a means to improve market efficiencies and update NAFTA without the need to re-open or re-negotiate its provisions.” There is an overlap between the Pacific Alliance and the much larger TPP trade talks. Both initiatives seek to bridge the Americas with Asia and create Pacific-based trade blocs. With the possibility of TPP negotiations dragging on and the difficulty the deal might have getting ratified by the U.S. Senate, the Pacific Alliance could open new doors to trade with Asian countries sooner.
In Latin America, there is a growing divide over the future of continental political and economic integration. Some countries have banded together to resist U.S. imperialism and any attempts to destabilize the region. There is also a move to end the destructive cycle of investment treaties and replace it with an alternative economic structure that better respects the sovereignty of nation states. The Pacific Alliance stands as a counterbalance to some of the other regional integration efforts that are trying to protect against the dangers of globalization. It is designed to signal a commitment to free trade and open markets to its neighbours and to the rest of the world. In many ways, the Pacific Alliance represents a resurgence of the failed U.S. initiated FTAA which was part of an agenda to consolidate corporate control.
Related articles by Dana Gabriel:
Using the TPP to Renegotiate and Expand NAFTA
Canada and Mexico to Join U.S. in NAFTA of the Pacific
Building Blocks Towards an Asia-Pacific Union
Beyond NAFTA: Shaping the Future of North American Integration
Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at Be Your Own Leader
VIDEO — Syria chemical attack facts tough to trace amid US & UK war hardline
RT
August 26, 2013
The US and many of its allies seem impatient to wait for the UN findings – with American warships already converging near the war-torn state – and the British are preparing to join them. RT’s Maria Finoshina looks at where their confidence comes from in blaming the Syrian government for using chemical weapons – and where it might lead.
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT
RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
VIDEO — Tripoli Torment: Libya crippled by jihad & oil brawl 2 yrs after Gaddafi ouster
RT
August 26, 2013
Two years on from the fall of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, the euphoria of the revolution has all but gone. Today, armed militias and Islamists rule much of the country fighting over territory, smuggling routes, and shares of dwindling oil revenue. To top that off, a desperate government is quietly re-activating Colonel Gaddafi’s feared surveillance apparatus, using it to hunt down dissenters. RT’s Paula Slier reports on the sobering anniversary.
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT
RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
VIDEO — Woman Told to Move or Euthanise Her Autistic Child
The Truther Girls
August 23, 2013
Please like my FB page http://facebook.com/thetruthergirls
A woman sent her neighbor a letter telling her she should move or euthanize her autistic son, whom she refers to as a ‘nuisance’ and ‘retarded’. Although it is not being considered a hate crime, this action has created an uproar and people are calling for her to serve jail time. The fact is, this woman is not alone in her attitude of contempt toward the disabled. What can be done to change things and what should be done with this woman?
links coming
http://www.mamamia.com.au/parenting/a…
Talking NDAA With My Congressman
P.A.N.D.A. People Against The NDAA
August 21, 2013
Christopher Corbett
PANDA Northern Nevada Chapter
On August 7, 2013, I attended U.S. Congressman Mark Amodei’s Town Hall meeting held at the beautiful Montreaux Country Club in Reno, NV. My primary reason for attending was to, once again, address the Congressman’s voting record regarding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This was my third attempt to discuss the NDAA with him. In previous conversations, he had always attempted to dodge and deflect questions regarding the NDAA and to shut me down in my effort to push the issue. This town hall would be no different.
The meeting began with a question from an influential attendee as to why there has been no response from Congress regarding the many impeachable acts committed by the Obama Administration. Congressman Amodei danced around the question of “why no impeachment” and somehow landed on the Farm Bill. I wondered if anyone else noticed the lack of substance from the Congressman regarding the essence of the actual question posed. This then led to a string of follow up Q & A and comments from participants within the room. I patiently watched and listened and allowed the dialogue to flow and run it’s course.
As the number of hands raised for questions began to decrease, I raised my hand and was surprised when Congressman Amodei pointed to me on my first try, recognizing me and saying something to the effect of, “yeah, I know, the NDAA, right?”.
I had spoken to the Congressman previously on two occasions regarding the NDAA. He also has had an advisor of his contact me to discuss the NDAA and, shortly thereafter, attended a meeting of the Conservative Talk Lunch group which I had been a regular guest speaker, at the time. The bottom line is that he knows who I am and that I take issue with the NDAA.
Taking the floor, I felt a slight grin cross my face, I stated that I had a few questions but first thanked him for upholding his oath of office and voting in favor of the Amash-Conyers Amendment to a recent Defense Department appropriations bill which, if passed, would have defunded the NSA’s megadata collection program and that his vote was a step in the right direction. The Congressman seemed pleased with my acknowledgement.
Moving on, I mentioned “However, I do have a few other issues with your voting record on a couple of issues” and posed three questions. The first, “Why did you vote for NDAA 2012 which includes the authorization of indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, trial or access to legal counsel?”; the second, “Why did you vote against the Smith-Gibson Amendment to the 2014 NDAA which would have repealed the authorization of indefinite detention without charge or trial?”; and the third, “Why did you vote for the Cyber Intelligence Security and Protection Act, CISPA, which infringes upon internet freedom and First Amendment rights?”
Amodei’s response was, “We’ve already discussed this (NDAA). I’ve had my advisor call you. We agreed to disagree and we still disagree. As to the second question about the Amendment, I don’t recall it. I will have to look it up”. Regarding CISPA, Amodei provided a long diatribe but never really seemed to answer my question. His response to my question on CISPA was of little consequence to me. My primary concern was to raise the issue of his voting record in favor of the NDAA’s authorization of indefinite detention. The only reason I brought up CISPA at all is because I don’t think very many people are aware that the bill has been passed by the House of Representatives.
To follow up, I began by stating that I had read his legal analysis on the NDAA which the Congressman had directed me to in a previous encounter. His legal analysis relies heavily on HR 1540 Section 1021 Subsection (e) and Section 1022 Subsection (b) 1 and stated that it was faulty. He became visibly and verbally more aggressive towards me. I proceeded to read Section 1021 Subsection (e) to the room and asked the Congressman to identify any prior or existing laws which cover the military detention of U.S. Citizens. He did not offer a response. I added, “There are no existing laws nor authorities to affect. This (Section 1021 Subsection (e)) is the benchmark. He did, however, offer a one on one meeting with me stating that he would prefer to discuss the issue there as opposed to the forum we were in. I found it interesting that he was uncomfortable discussing the NDAA publicly.
Juanita Cox, another participant at the town hall, spoke up and said, “I’d like to take you up on your offer of a meeting because I too am concerned about the NDAA and I believe that you violated your oath of office”.
Amodei said, “Okay”, and asked if he had her’s and my contact info.
Gene Braeger, another attendee, also reiterated Cox’s concerns and asked for a straw poll of the room to see how many were opposed to the NDAA. Amodei replied to Braeger by telling him that he had scheduled a conference call town hall meeting in September and would raise the question there. Braeger pushed further again asking “why can’t we just do a straw poll within the room?”. Amodei again mentioned the conference call but quickly gave in and said, “Okay, how many people support the NDAA?”. Not a single person raised their hand. He then asked, “How many people are opposed to the NDAA?”. From my perspective in the room, approximately half of the attendees raised their hands. I was later told by someone who had been standing in the back of the room that I had the majority. He then asked, how many people have no opinion of the NDAA?”, of which around one quarter of the room raised their hands. I then asked, “How many of you have never heard of the NDAA?”, but apparently, the Congressman didn’t wish to pursue the Q&A any further.
After the town hall had concluded, Cox commented, “I think Amodei thinks he’s in trouble. Perhaps the information he was given by the lobbyists or the people he relies on was faulty. He appeared to become more responsive and softened when other participants in the town hall confronted him about the NDAA.”
Overall, it was a successful meeting. I am grateful to those who spoke up about the NDAA. It was good to hear them chime in. We have Congressman Amodei’s attention and an opportunity to share our concerns with him. We were able to engage and push forward the dialogue and our message. Hopefully, those who may not have been aware of the NDAA are now researching it further. There is always plenty of room for more in the fight for liberty.
VIDEO — Threat Against Syria – More Than Hype – Morris
108morris108
August 27, 2013
From Hype To Sabre Rattling the (Zionist) West is raising the stakes, and looks set to make some surgical strikes. Syria seems duty bound to retaliate in some measure, US ships and forces in Jordan would seem likely targets, Israel is a possible target too, and lastly the British base in Cyprus. And would Turkey allows itself to be a target?
PN 