New Allies, New Trade Agreement, and we're kinda in the way

Future leftwing co-signees to an Americas countertrade agreement; Equador, Argentine, Nicaragua and Newfoundland.

.............Newfoundland

Chris said:

OK, this is controversial, but important. Perhaps people can refrain from rhetoric and actually discuss this, as this may have consequences for our country, our area and our part of the world. ...

"The left-wing leaders of Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela have signed a three-way trade agreement aimed at countering US influence in Latin America."

.... Venezuela has a lot of oil and joining this trade agreement may become a prerequisite to get some of it).

Click to expand...

NewsBBC is way off the mark... The three Latin American leaders in question, met in Cuba to sign a free trade agreement, called the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA, for its acronym in Spanish), to promote trade, cooperation and integration between the countries. 12 separate agreements were signed between the countries. Maybe, inasmuch as these agreements may not further US interests, I can see where ALBA would appear to counteract the US politically...
Regarding whether Venezuela may require participation in ALBA in order to supply oil, it is a preposterous proposition. Unlike the US, which does not have friends but interests in Latin America, Venezuela does not seek to control other countries resources or browbeat their way into markets to sell heavily subsidized agricultural products to the disadvantage of Latin American producers, ...

-

It seems to me odd that the U.S. would go after leftist governments in the Americas in regards to suppling oil and gas when the number one supplier of oil and gas to the U.S. is Canada and can/will be the exclusive supplier in the future. Why not leave these latin countries to fend for themselves. Stay out of their politics. IMF, WTO stay out of the Caribbean. Let these countries trade amongst themselves.

gary short said:

It seems to me odd that the U.S. would go after leftist governments in the Americas in regards to suppling oil and gas when the number one supplier of oil and gas to the U.S. is Canada and can/will be the exclusive supplier in the future. Why not leave these latin countries to fend for themselves. Stay out of their politics. IMF, WTO stay out of the Caribbean. Let these countries trade amongst themselves.

Click to expand...

Why would it be odd for the US to get along well with 'leftist' governments? The UK with George W.'s mate Tony Blair has a 'leftist' government, not to the same degree as Castro, Morales, Chavez, but still. Not appreciating an openly anti-American government is more logical, although you'd think a country like the US might place itself above such populist rethoric. Also, don't equate the US with IMF, WTO and other international organizations; after all, there is trade between Cuba and European countries.
On the Dominican Republic, it relies much more on the US for its export than Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba ( and also than countries with more moderate left-wing governments as Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and probably Peru). Still, I wonder what will happen with the international and maybe national coverage of the next presidential elections; The only issue for international media at any Latin American election now is whether another country will join the group of countries with left-wing anti-American governments (see Peru right now); It'll be interesting to see whether the next Dominican presidential elections will be put in that perspective as well.

Based on the reports I have read here and in other periodicals, Leonel is making the obvious attempt to remain neutral in the ongoing rhetoric emanating from these "leftist" governments.
He is willing to accept the cheaper oil from Chavez, loans from Brazil and other incentives/inducements being offered by them.
Whether it is their intention to get the DR severly indebted to them, to obligate the DR through such maneuvers, or if they are merely acting out of regional loyalty remains to be seen.
Personally, i believe Sr. Chavez' rhetoric are more in line with showing the Latin community of nations that it is OK to lambast the US, to make outlandish accusations of the sort recently being made and that these can be made without fear of any form of retribution from the US.
I place Sr. Chavez' remarks in the category of political posturing by a "wannabe". I may be entirely wrong to do so, but that's the way it appears to me.
That Sr. Chavez isa growing power in Latin America goes without saying. he is gaining a following amoung those who think as he does regards government and economics. Latin America has been bent on travelling that road for a considerable period of time. But then they have all been in the clutches of either dictators or muscle men for much of their history. Their States have always been that of a feudalistic nature wherein those in power have kept the population in thrall for their own benefit and have totally disregarded the ambitions of those below them on the economic ladder.
Nor do I think the mindset of the ruling class, whether it be peons or elites, has been changed by the politico/economic situation now emerging.
It will still be a battle between the "haves" and the "have nots" and will eventually turn into a bloodbath for both. Latins are just too emotionally inclined for their own good.
Nor do I believe the US has any intentions of "invading" the Latin countries militarily. That would be a foregone suicidal mission for the participants.

As to the future of such agreements as DR-CAFTA and it's partners in other
Latin States, that is for the participants themselves to decide. Can the DR and other latin countries, including the Caribbean States, benefit from such agreements? I think they can. maybe not immediately, but as they gain strength, they all can re-negotiate these agreements to their advantage if the have the will to do so, instead of laying down and saying "here I am come have me at your will".
Regardless of all the negative rhetoric about the aforementioned agreement being "one-sided', in the final analysis it is the individual countries whidh have agreed to the stipulations set forth without too much real argument from their political negotiators. it is those negotiators who have created the negative side of the story by giving in too easily and too much. Blame them, not the US side of the equation. Always be aware that there are TWO SIDES of the agreement equation and the intimidations used by both sides.
It's easy to blame the "power centers" for demanding concessions and to disregard the "weak" countries for giving in to those demands. All the negotiators have to do is SAY NO!!!
So, in the agument of the US being the "bad boy" because the "heavily subsidise" certain industries is really without credance. If one wishes to trade with such an entity for those subsidised commodities (isn't that what we're talking about), then one must accept what is fact and not whine about it.
Farm products are the only "commodoties" that I know of that are directly subsidised by the US. There are "tax incentives' on other items at the production point, but that element can't be seen as "subsidising"

Methinks I have gotten a bit off the OP with this and I apologize for that. But it is all about the trade agreements between countries that is the root of the discussion and thus the DR_CAFTA and associated country agreements must be re-visited in that light for full coverage ofthe subject matter at hand.

Texas Bill