Here’s how it was reported…
Leftist leaders of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia on Saturday signed a comprehensive integration agreement and trade accord cast as an alternative to U.S. plans for a free-trade pact with the Latin American region.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Bolivian President Evo Morales signed a “people’s” trade agreement, countering a U.S.-led movement to create a free trade zone in the region.
The unspoken assumption here is that the US trade proposals are “free-trade”, & this trilateral agreement is not.
Consider how the trade agreements from our government usually work: overbearing intellectual-property rules, maintenance of our tariffs on their goods while demanding otherwise from the other parties, subsidies, etc… Basically a political integration where the US has sway over how the others operate.
With that in mind, look at their agreement. The AP via Canada’s Globe And Mail has details:
Venezuela-Cuba trade is expected to reach more than $3.5-billion (U.S.) this year � about 40 per cent higher than in 2005. Among other measures, the deal signed between Mr. Chavez and Mr. Castro has Venezuela � the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter and a major supplier to the United States � selling 90,000 barrels a day of crude to the communist-run island at international market prices, but in exchange for services and agricultural products instead of cash.
Later Saturday, the three presidents signed a second document with more concrete proposals.
Cuba promised to send Bolivia doctors and teachers. Venezuela will send gasoline to the Andean nation and set up a $100-million fund for development programs and a $30-million fund for other social projects.
Cuba and Venezuela also agreed to buy all of Bolivia’s soybeans, recently left without a market after Colombia signed a free trade pact with the United States.
And Wiki gives some background:
The ALBA (Spanish abbreviation of “Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas”) is somewhat similar in aspirations to the European Coal and Steel Community (a forerunner of the EU), which makes emphasis on energy and infrastructure agreements that are gradually extended to other areas to finally include the total economic, political and military integration of the member states. (emphasis mine)
Ignoring the military part, what’s the difference? They have politically-slanted agreements meant to direct trade, we have politically-slanted agreements meant to direct trade. Since neither agreement begins and ends with “all barriers to trade between willing private citizens are hereby abolished”, neither one is “free-trade”.
