FTAA/CAFTA opposition rising.

In 1994, when proponents announced their plan to expand NAFTA into the hemisphere-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), they claimed that their new pact would be signed by all 34 nations and delivered to Congress for approval in January 2005. None other than President Bill Clinton enthusiastically announced the timetable at a Summit of the Americas held in Miami. Trade representatives began enlisting support from national leaders throughout Latin America. Once into his presidency in 2001, Mr. Bush pledged his eager support for the same plan and for the same deadline. By February 2003, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, the administration's point man for the FTAA, added his expectation that the pact would be delivered to Congress during the first month of 2005.

It is now May 2005 and the FTAA agreement has not only not been delivered to Congress, Brazil and the U.S., co-chairs of the final ETAA negotiations, appear to be in a holding pattern. And opposition to the pact in Congress and among the American people continues to swell. Obviously, the FTAA is in trouble. David Rockefeller, who is rightly labeled the "godfather" of this dangerous proposal, and who extended personal congratulations to Vice President Dick Cheney for his support, must be wondering what went wrong. Whatever David wants, David usually gets. But no one should consider this plan defeated. Because the considerable Rockefeller clout reaches into the Oval Office and up to Capitol Hill, it's too soon to be making arrangements for the FFAA's funeral.

As a means of greasing the skids for the FTAA, Mr. Bush announced in January 2002 a plan to create a separate free trade agreement with the nations of Central America. The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is slated for a vote in Congress as early as May of this year. Itself a dangerous proposal, CAFTA is clearly a steppingstone toward passage of the far more comprehensive FTAA. If CAFTA passes, the FFAA will be resuscitated. If CAFTA is defeated, chances for passage of the FTAA will shrink enormously.

Both of these pending agreements have been touted as extensions of NAFTA. Because of the pacts' similarities, tying NAFTA to CAFTA is appropriate, and likely why AFL-CIO President John Sweeney stated his firm opposition to CAFTA in late March. "NAFFA has cost U.S. workers 900,000 jobs and job opportunities," said the leader of 13 million union members. Urging rejection of CAFTA, he added, "The U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size." AFL-CIO economist Thea Lee agreed and chimed in that "CAFTA extends a failed model." Contradicting administration claims about NAFTA, she insisted that it also didn't help Mexican workers because "real wages in Mexico have fallen [and] the number of poor people has grown."

Confirming the views expressed by these AFLCIO honchos, the Los Angeles Times recently quoted an illegal Mexican immigrant who insisted that the real beneficiaries of NAFTA were large Mexican and American companies. With logic worthy of the holder of a degree in philosophy, the man said: "If it were true that NAFTA was good for Mexico, we wouldn't be here."

The most compelling reason for rejecting these trade pacts is their effect on sovereignty. In April 2004, a NAFTA tribunal overruled U.S. courts in a dispute between a Canadian and an American firm. NAFTA tribunal judge Abner Mikva offered, "If Congress had known that there was anything like this in NAFTA, they never would have voted for it." Furthermore, when the California Legislature passed a bill last year to help the state dispose of millions of scrap tires by recycling them into asphalt for road construction, Mexican rubber producers claimed this was a violation of NAFTA. Gov. Schwarzenegger, citing the supposed supremacy of NAFTA, vetoed the bill.

But opposition to the pact is growing. The May 5 New York Times reported that a group of House Democrats calling themselves the New Democratic Coalition announced their opposition to CAFTA because of what they claim are its deficient labor provisions. With objections to the pact expected from most Democrats and from as many as 30 to 40 House Republicans, the Times reported on May 10: "The administration admits that even in this off-election year, when trade deals have the best chance of passage, it does not have the votes" to get CAFTA approved.

But the globalists behind this venture certainly haven't given up. New Trade Representative Rob Portman plans to roam the halls of Congress seeking support for CAFTA. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have also lent their weight to the cause by insisting that the pact will benefit all nations involved. And President Bush is expected to use his considerable clout to boost chances for passage. Behind the scenes, of course, lurks the influence of David Rockefeller and other members of America's power elite whose decades-long backing of a string of Western Hemisphere groups first set the stage for NAFTA and then for CAFTA and the FTAA.

It's not too late for all who value our nation's freedom and independence to urge congressmen and senators to say "NO!" to CAFTA and, if it comes before them, to the FTAA as well.