Free Trade Area of the Americas - What Will Happen to Latin America?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about rising Latin American economic power. This follows this post about Indonesia. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Free Trade Area of the Americas What Will Happen to Latin America


article by Fred Nance


The United States can no longer take its superiority in the economy of the western hemisphere for granted. The EU's economic reach grows ever longer and its influence ever stronger.



Many people in the western hemisphere desire the "American dream." The prosperity and economic boom of the 1990s in the United States has many nations longing for open markets, so they can begin to taste some of the good times. On the planning table is the "Free Trade Agreement of the Americas" (FTAA) that would create the largest free trade agreement the world has ever seen. It is hoped that by the year 2005, the FTAA will create a market of 800 million people in the Americas, from the Arctic to Antarctica.



This past April, 34 nations participated in the Summit of the Americas in Quebec. President Bush actively took part in that summit and has been asking the U.S. Congress for authority to negotiate this agreement. "I will look south, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment of my presidency. Those who ignore Latin America do not fully understand America itself," said the president ( Latin Trade Magazine, June 2001, p. 30). He has promised that the trade zone will not only create markets for the United States, but will fortify democracy in Latin America and spread the economic benefits equitably.



Can a partnership be forged between the United States and Latin America? What is the most likely scenario for these nations, according to Bible prophecy?



As pointed out in a recent New York Times article, the combination of democracy and free enterprise in Latin America does not guarantee higher living standards. Every nation in the western hemisphere except Cuba presently has an elected government, with increasingly open markets. Yet, 224 million Latin Americans (roughly 36 percent of the population) live in poverty. Many of these nations are experimenting with democratic capitalism for the first time. As a result of this experimentation, economic benefits do not filter down to the masses, because the region's rigid social structure isn't equipped to equitably distribute wealth.



"Latin Americans get to choose their leaders, but once they are in place, it's the old cliques that make the bottom-line decisions that are suitable to their own needs, not the needs of the people," says Hernando De Soto, a Peruvian economist ("Latin America's Poor Survive It All," New York Times, June 24, 2001).



The source of divergence



Why are the United States and Canada so much more prosperous and more democratic than Latin America?



Ibero-America actually had a head start on the United States and Canada. The first permanent Spanish settlement was established in 1493 on Hispaniola in what is today the Dominican Republic. The first permanent British colony was established more than a century later, in 1607 at Jamestown in what was to become Virginia.



Venezuelan writer Carlos Rangel wrote: "As late as 1700, the Spanish American empire still gave the impression of being incomparably richer, much more powerful and more likely to succeed than the British colonies of North America" (Lawrence E. Harrison, The Pan-American Dream, 1997, p. 18). Latin America had an earlier start, yet British America surpassed it in power and influence.



Lawrence Harrison writes: "As we approach the end of the 20th Century, Latin America is roughly fifty years behind the United States and Canada in terms of the prosperity of its citizens and the solidity of its democratic institutions" (ibid, p. 18). What explains this flip-flop in history?



We can turn to Bible prophecy for the answer. God made known through Jacob that Joseph's descendants would receive the birthright promises "in the last days" (Genesis 49:1And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.



See All..., 22-26). It is because of the tremendous physical blessings promised to the descendants of Joseph that the United States has prospered so much more and become more powerful. The United States was molded from British, Anglo-Protestant traditions, whereas Latin America traces its roots to Ibero-Catholic culture. These are the fundamental differences that explain the divergence between the nations of the Americas at the beginning of the 21st century.



Where will it go from here? Can a partnership be forged among all the nations of America?



Leadership needed



There are many who believe that without leadership, the United States might lose out in the competition for Latin American markets. Jenny Bates, an international economist at the Progressive Policy Institute, writes: "There is an emerging risk of the United States being slowly shut out of Latin American markets, while our competitors, particularly the European Union, gain ground. In the future, if Latin American countries face lower barriers on imports from the EU than from the United States, they will purchase goods and services, including highly lucrative capital goods, from our competitors. This potential outcome is not lost on the Europeans" ( Blueprint Series, Ideas for a New Century, 2001, p. 5).



Despite President Bush's desire to negotiate a free trade pact, many forces are at work to prevent it. Powerful U.S. interest groups, especially labor unions and environmentalists, oppose free trade. The U.S. Congress itself might be against it, as President Clinton found out when he failed to obtain the renewal of "fast track" negotiating authority that he needed to forge a similar accord.



Whether free trade is reached throughout the western hemisphere, one can be sure that Europe is watching these developments closely. Europe has a strong historical, cultural and demographic relationship with many countries of Latin America. European multinational corporations have established a major presence there.



Corporations from Spain are especially dominating in acquisitions of banking, energy and telecommunications to the point that they will soon hold pan-regional power in Latin America. A trade agreement between Mexico and the European Union was recently signed, which was Europe's response to NAFTA. Some economists believe that agreement set the pattern for possible future trade agreements between Europe and Latin America.



From "dollarization" to "euroization?"



"Dollarization," the abandoning of a country's local currency to adopt the dollar, has been occurring in some Latin American nations. Last year, Ecuador officially adopted the dollar. El Salvador began using it as legal currency on January 1, 2001. Guatemala joined the race to dollarize in May, and it is also being discussed in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Argentina has pegged its peso one-to-one with the dollar for a decade.



Now Argentina has announced it will also link its peso to the euro. The value of the peso will be fixed at one euro, as soon as the euro rises to parity with the dollar. When the euro rises or falls against the dollar, the peso will be set at the mid value between the two currencies.



Cuba has also debated switching to the euro, although no action has been taken at this time. Might this become a trend, if poor Latin American countries see a more powerful Europe rising and the leadership of the United States declining, as Bible prophecy foretells?



Economic system foretold



Latin America's desire to embrace globalization and free markets could lead it to make an economic pact with a coming world economic system that is unveiled in the 18th chapter of Revelation. There it describes the merchants of the earth becoming rich by her (verse 3) and states they will mourn because Babylon, the greatest customer for their goods, will be gone after she is destroyed (verse 11).



The increasing presence of European multinational corporations, along with the historical and cultural ties between Europe and Latin America make the possibility of future trade alliances and monetary movements worth watching. WNP

.

“Reluctantly Accepts” the jailing of dissidents in Cuba

This is an interesting article from http://babalublog.com/ about how the president of Brazil is accepting jailed Cuban prisoners. Of course an effective way to dry up money to Cuba's supporter Venezuela is to allow domestic offshore oil drilling which sends revenues to nations like Iran and Venezuela and every Cuban exile should help implememt this. For more posts like this click here.


“Reluctantly Accepts”
By Alberto de la Cruz,
Brazilian president Lula da Silva says he "reluctantly accepts" the jailing of dissidents in Cuba because--after all--everyone in Cuba is subject to the dictatorship's so-called "judicial system." According to Lula, the logic behind his astounding and contemptible statement is that he would not want Cuba telling Brazil how they should run their judicial system.
Touching on another sensitive issue, Silva said he reluctantly accepts the decisions of Cuba's judicial system in jailing dissidents who have subsequently gone on hunger strikes.
"We have to respect the determinations of Cuba's judiciary and government in detaining people under Cuban legislation, as I would want them to respect Brazil's," he said.
Guillermo Farinas has been on a hunger strike since Feb. 24 to demand the release of ailing Cuban political detainees. Dissident Orlando Zapata died in February amid a prolonged hunger strike, while Silva was in Havana visiting President Raul Castro.
"I wish that (the detention of political prisoners) did not happen, but I cannot question the reasons why Cuba detained them, just as I wouldn't want Cuba to question why there are prisoners in Brazil," he said.
Silva himself carried out a hunger strike against Brazil's 1964-1985 dictatorship, an action he now calls "insanity."
Emphasis Mine
I must say that it is quite big of Lula to look beyond the half-century of murders, imprisonments, and tortures committed against the Cuban people by a self-appointed dictator and afford the slave masters in Havana the benefit of the doubt. After observing President da Silva's deference and respect for the laws of another country, I wonder if he felt the same way about Pinochet's Chile, or Botha's South Africa, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or even Hitler's Germany.
We don't even have to go that far back in history: I wonder if da Silva felt the same way about Honduras.
Oops, it seems he made an exception to his own vow to respect a sovereign nation's rule of law and judicial system when it came to Honduras. Hypocrisy goes by many names, and one of them is obviously Lula da Silva.
The blame for Cuba's half-century of misery and death does not fall only on the hands of Fidel Castro, his followers in Cuba, and the soulless opportunists in Cuba who are more interested in gaming the system than helping their fellow Cubans. Blame also falls on the countless foreign leaders and dignitaries who over the past five decades have "reluctantly accepted" the subjugation and murderous oppression of the Cuban people.
The blood of Cuban patriots is on many hands and not just their oppressors. Their blood is also on the hands of foreign enablers who not only accepted the vile atrocities committed in Cuba, but also provided cover and assistance for the Cuban dictatorship.
The enslavement of Cuba cannot and will not last forever. And I can promise you, President da Silva, and the rest of the foreign dignitaries that share your respect for the Castro tyranny, that the Cuban people will not be as willing to "reluctantly accept" the role you and your cohorts played in lengthening the misery and repression of Cuba.

"Barack, Stick up for US also Please!"

This is a very interesting article from Pat Buchanan about the President's tour to the Summit of the Americas. Also the book link here http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Perfect-Latin-American-Idiot/dp/156833236X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240341710&sr=1-1# is a better book to order than the one Hugo Chavez gave to Barack Obama! http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/04/21/the_apologists

The Apologists

Pat Buchanan

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

For 50 minutes, Obama sat mute, as a Marxist thug from Nicaragua delivered his diatribe, charging America with a century of terrorist aggression in Central America.
After Daniel Ortega finished spitting in our face, accusing us of inhumanity toward Fidel Castro's Cuba, Obama was asked his thoughts.
"I thought it was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought."
Hillary Clinton was asked to comment: "I thought the cultural performance was fascinating," she cooed.
Pressed again on Ortega's vitriol, Hillary replied: "To have those first-class Caribbean entertainers all on one stage and to see how much was done in such a small amount of space. I was overwhelmed."

Thus the nation that won the Cold War, contained the cancer of Castroism in Cuba, liberated Grenada, blocked communist takeovers of Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, and poured scores of billions in aid into this region was left undefended by its own leaders at the Summit of the Americas.

Nor was this the only unanswered insult. Hugo Chavez, who has called Obama an "ignoramus" and Bush "El Diablo," walked over to a seated U.S. president and handed him the anti-American tract "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent."
The book blames Latin America's failures on white Europeans.

It opens, "Renaissance Europeans ventured across the oceans and buried their teeth in the throats of the Indian civilizations."

Civilizations? Before Pizarro and Cortez, the Inca and Aztec empires these conquistadors overthrew were into human sacrifice.

Evo Morales, the Aymaran president of Bolivia, who is using the race card against Bolivians of European descent, implied a U.S. role in an assassination plot against him.

Argentina's Cristina Kirchner, who allegedly received black-bag money from Chavez, ripped into America for its role in the 1980s. Under Reagan, America aided Britain in the Falklands War, after the Argentine junta invaded the islands, and assisted the Contras in their war of national liberation to oust Ortega's Sandinistas.

Again, Obama offered no defense of his country.

President Lula da Silva of Brazil, who blames the world financial crisis on "white, blue-eyed bankers," told Obama that any future Summit of the Americas without the Castro brothers was unacceptable.
Perhaps Obama believes in turn-the-other-cheek diplomacy, though it is hard to find much success in history for such a policy. Perhaps pacifism is in his DNA. Perhaps he shares the indictment of America that is part of the repertoire of every Latin demagogue.

Whatever his motive, in Trinidad, there were not two sides to the story. There were the trashers of America on the Latino left and a U.S. president who wailed plaintively, "I'm thankful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was 3 months old."

But, the Bay of Pigs, had it succeeded, would have given Cubans 50 years of freedom instead of the brutal dictatorship they have had to endure. And it took place four months before Barack was born.
Obama's silence -- signifying, as it does, assent -- in the face of attacks on his country is of a piece with the "contrition tour" of his secretary of state.
"Clinton Scores Points by Admitting Past U.S. Errors," was the headline over Saturday's New York Times story by Mark Landler:
"It has become a recurring theme of Hillary Rodham Clinton's early travels as the chief diplomat of the United States: She says that American policy on a given issue has failed, and her foreign listeners fall all over themselves in gratitude.
"On Friday, Mrs. Clinton said ... that the uncompromising policy of the Bush administration toward Cuba had not worked. ...

"The contrition tour goes beyond Latin America. In China, Mrs. Clinton told audiences that the United States must accept its responsibility as a leading emitter of greenhouse gases. In Indonesia, she said the American-backed policy of sanctions against Myanmar had not been effective. And in the Middle East, she pointed out that ostracizing the Iranian government had not persuaded it to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions."

Sandler wrote that Hillary brought to mind Bill Clinton:

"On a single trip to Africa in 1998 ... Bill Clinton apologized for American participation in slavery; American support of brutal African dictators; American 'neglect and ignorance' of Africa; American failure to intervene sooner in the Rwandan genocide of 1994; American 'complicity' in apartheid ... ."

Yet, as C.S. Lewis reminds us in "God in the Dock," "The first and fatal charm of national repentance is ... the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing -- but, first, of denouncing -- the conduct of others."
Bewailing the policies of Bush as failures and standing mute in the face of attacks on his country and predecessors may come back to bite Obama.
For when Jimmy Carter assumed a posture of moral superiority over LBJ and Richard Nixon, by declaring, "We have gotten over our inordinate fear of communism," it came back to bite him, good and hard.