 |
Peter Brookes writes
a weekly column on foreign policy and defense
for the New York Post and is penning
a book on national security affairs for McGraw
Hill due out early next fall. He appears regularly
on national TV and radio.
Prior to joining the Heritage
Foundation, Brookes served in the Bush
administration as the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense (DASD) for Asian and Pacific Affairs
in the Office of Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, where he was responsible for the
development, planning, guidance and oversight
of U .S. security and defense policy for 38
countries and 5 bilateral defense alliances
in the Asia-Pacific region.
Brookes has a distinguished military background,
including active duty in support of military
operations in Iraq/Kuwait (Desert Storm);
Haiti (Restore Democracy); and Bosnia (Joint
Endeavor). He flew reconnaissance missions
in East Asia and the Persian Gulf while stationed
in Japan covering military matters related
to the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam,
Iran and Iraq. His personal awards and decorations
include: the Joint Service Commendation Medal;
the Navy Commendation Medal (3 awards); the
Navy Achievement Medal; several naval and
joint unit awards; the Defense Language Institute’s
Kellogg Award; the Joint Chiefs of Staff service
badge; and Naval Aviation Observer (NAO) wings.
Sound
Off! - Have an opinion about this
article? Visit the discussion forum.
View
the Brookes Archives
|
|
|
|
May 23, 2005
[Sound
Off! - Have an opinion about this commentary? Visit the
discussion forum.]
Americans might be so focused on expanding freedom and democracy
in the Muslim world that we'll blow an historic opportunity to promote
those causes in our own backyard. That's what will happen if Congress
rejects the Central American Free Trade Act (CAFTA) in the coming
weeks.
CAFTA is a U.S.-initiated trade agreement with five Central American
nations (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua)
and the Caribbean's Dominican Republic.
The pact has far-reaching ramifications for U.S. interests, including
free markets, democracy and national security.
Of course, CAFTA is predominantly about trade: the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR) office says CAFTA countries constitute the second-largest
U.S. export market in Latin America (behind Mexico and ahead of
Brazil).
These six nations (of 44 million people) form a larger export market
for the U.S. than do (the 1.5 billion people of) Russia, India and
Indonesia combined -- and the CAFTA market could be even bigger.
Under existing trade practices, 80 percent of CAFTA country goods
come duty-free into the U.S. market, while American exports face
stiff tariffs; CAFTA will level the playing field by eliminating
those barriers.
CAFTA will also help the U.S. and its neighbors compete with China's
economic rise. Right now,there's lots of hand-wringing over America's
trade deficit with China, especially in textiles, and about Beijing's
undervalued, non-floating currency, the Renminbi. Implementing CAFTA
will strengthen ties with regional garment makers ensuring that
they use American fabrics and yarn instead of Chinese textiles.
That will help support U.S. exports, jobs and influence.
American national security interests are also at stake. Central
America has made great strides toward democracy since the turbulent
1980s, when authoritarian governments, bloody civil wars and communist
insurgencies prevailed. CAFTA provides a unique chance to support
these young democracies. As Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick
said in a recent speech: "CAFTA matters most to them [CAFTA heads
of state] because it will strengthen the foundations of democracy
by promoting growth and cutting poverty, creating equality of opportunity
and reducing corruption."
In sharp contrast, Cuba's Fidel Castro and his "Mini-Me" -- Venezuelan
strongman Hugo Chavez -- both oppose CAFTA because it undermines
their efforts to spread socialist revolution in Latin America. Killing
off CAFTA would play into the hands of these two false prophets,
increase anti-Americanism and boost China's influence in the region.
CAFTA would have a salutary effect on illegal immigration, drug
trafficking, criminal gangs like MS-13 and also on the vile international
trafficking of people -- a practice akin to a modern slave trade.
Today, far too many Central Americans and Dominicans are informally
employed, underemployed -- or unemployed. Nearly half live in poverty.
CAFTA would generate economic opportunity at home, providing alternatives
to a life of crime, reducing the need -- and incentives -- to illegally
enter the U.S and strengthening regional democracies.
Passing CAFTA may seem like a "no-brainer," but not everyone agrees
-- especially sugar growers, labor unions and the environmental
lobby.
U.S. sugar producers hate CAFTA because it would marginally increase
sugar imports from CAFTA countries. But that "increase" may be as
little as as one spoonful per American per week.


|
Labor unions and environmentalists attack the pact because it doesn't
mandate CAFTA countries adopt international labor and U.S. environmental
standards. In fact, over the long run, the economic benefits arising
from CAFTA would vastly increase wealth in these nations -- wealth
that will enable them to enforce existing, and institute new, labor
and environmental protections.
It's unconscionable that Congress would gamble with our political,
economic and security interests based on misunderstandings of these
issues.
Our domestic debate should focus on the importance of the region's
proximity and its stability -- what happens south of our border
affects us significantly. A failure to pass CAFTA would increase
the region's risk of tumbling back into troubled times.
The United States has rightly been promoting freedom and democracy
as an antidote to many of the world's troubles. And the world will
be watching our deliberations over CAFTA -- to see whether our deeds
match our words.
CAFTA provides a great opportunity to support freedom and democracy
in the Caribbean and Latin America. Congress must decide whether
America's national interests -- or those of K street lobbyists and
special interests -- are more important.
Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow. E-mail:
peterbrookes@heritage.org
Email
this page to friends RSS feed
[Have an opinion on this article? Sound
off here.]
© 2005 News World Communications, Inc.
All rights reserved. Mr. Brookes is a Senior Fellow for National
Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. This
column originally appeared in the New York Post. All opinions
expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily
reflect those of Military.com.
|