Good post. I also liked this comment from Dan Drezner on the importance of CAFTA to U.S. soft power:

For Democrats convinced that the Bush administration has pissed away U.S. soft power, answer me this question: what kind of a signal does the U.S. send to the rest of the world when its legislature says, in effect, "We won't ratify this deal because we're scared of six states that combined are smaller than the Czech economy"? Improved access to our markets remains one of the best incentives the U.S. has to proffer to the rest of the world. If we deny even hemispheric allies this benefit, what do you think the rest of the world will think?

I would be much happier about CAFTA if it were more about free trade and less about corporate welfare. Two provisions, the ability to apply for redress if CAFTA hurts your business and the intellectual property provisions, for example, just aren't about free trade.

I agree in very strong terms about both CAFTA and Hugo Chavez... and the potential interaction between the two. One of the major failures of the Bush Administration foreign policy, in my opinion, is the degree to which it has let the South American situation deteriorate.

In fairness, I have few if any concrete recommendations. Even an enthusiastic endorsement of CAFTA isn't worth much given Chavez' extraordinary skills at manipulating chaos, and the South American nations' collective bad experiences with open markets and free trade.

But having recently finished Tom Barnett's very interesting "The Pentagon's New Map", and having found a lot of resonance between his ideas and mine, I remain convinced that Chavez profits from disconnectedness and choas, while we (and hundreds of millions of others) would profit from greater trade ties and the peaceful relations which trade both requires and fosters.

CAFTA already passed the Senate. It has to pass the House this week.

What Dave Schuler said. I'm all for free trade, but CAFTA is stuffed to the gills with provisions that give US firms special privileges. If the choice is between CAFTA and nothing I would reluctantly give a thumbs up, but I'm not happy about this "free trade for thee but not for me" attitude.

One of the reasons for promoting CAFTA has been that it would keep more workers at home, cutting down on the flow of illegals over our borders.

That CAFTA sets no goals of higher living standards in the countries affected does not win much support among the Central American working class.

Goals, Ruth? what makes you think that CAFTA doesn't have as a goal increased prosperity in the Latin American countries?

We've talked here about those who immigrate - or come illegally - to the U.S. from Latin countries but are unenthusiastic about assimilating into American society. The reality is that for some, coming here is solely an economic issue and perhaps collaterally a political freedom issue. But culturally? some wish they could live more freely and prosperously in their countries of origin and would never have come if that had been possible.

So why would it be a bad thing if one result of CAFTA were to be that they had more jobs at home?

Robin:

Sorry I am slow on reply, very time deprived right now.

You might want to check out this a.m.'s Washington Journal on CSpan, with Rep. Cuellar who supports CAFTA giving 'trickle down' (sometimes called voodoo economics) economic reasoning as justification for it.

Goals are probably a bit of a misnomer - as it ascribes objectives to policies. But when in CA recently I heard a lot of skepticism about their heirarchies' support for CAFTA, as it involves loosening of trade restrictions among countries without requirements on CA industries that they meet any standard of employee treatment. Salaries are of course much lower there, and safety measures pretty nonexistent - which argues to the working class people I talked to that the US couldn't care less about anything but big business.

In CA a very large bite is taken out of salaries for health care, school (including supplies and through doctoral degrees), other social services. I saw shantytowns, yes - and found out that these were workers from other countries who only came on worker visas for limited periods of time, to earn more than they could at home.

You can well imagine what cynicism is now occurring in CA over the high level armtwisting used to pass CAFTA. Especially after the kind of Supply Source economics argument its justifiers employed.

No doubt pure altruism.