While holding off for the time being on the sale of destroyers equipped with the Aegis radar system to Taiwan, the Bush administration agreed to provide the reactionary government with an extensive array of military weaponry. These include four Kidd-class destroyers, antisubmarine aircraft, mine-sweeping helicopters, and up to eight modern diesel submarines.

The destroyers, described by the Military Analysis Network as "the most powerful multipurpose destroyers in the [U.S.] fleet," can be delivered in three years as opposed to eight years needed to construct the Aegis-equipped warships. The Kidd-class ships were originally intended for use by the Shah of Iran, before he was overthrown in a popular revolution in that country in 1979.

Washington has in the past rejected Taiwan's requests for advanced diesel-powered submarines because they were classified as offensive weapons. In approving the order, administration officials claim the submarines are now needed to defend the island against China. On ABC's "Good Morning America" television program April 25, Bush reiterated the U.S. rulers' position that they would use military force "to help Taiwan defend herself."

The sale of this weaponry to Taiwan will also lead to much closer ties between the militaries of Washington and Taipei. "While overt cooperation, such as joint military exercises, is still unlikely," states the Wall Street Journal, "the U.S. could agree to increased exchanged of a lower profile, perhaps allowing more Taiwan officers to study at U.S. military institutions or sending U.S. teams to Taiwan for assessments."  
 
'Free trade' zone
Washington's moves in relation to Taiwan came after Bush, together with 33 other heads of governments in North and South America and the Caribbean, completed a three-day summit meeting in Quebec where they agreed to Washington's initiative to create what is touted as a "Free Trade Area of the Americas" where member nations reduce or eliminate tariffs by 2005.

Bush hailed the trade agreement, stating with candor that the accord will mean "we can combine in a common market"--with U.S. imperialism at its head--in order to "compete in the long term against the Far East and Europe."

According to the Financial Times, "The free trade area would be the world's largest trade grouping, with 800 million people and a third of world economic output."

The slowdown in the U.S. economy and its effects on Canada, countries in the Caribbean, Mexico, and the rest of Latin America hung over the meeting and underscored conflicts between Washington and a number of officials from governments in semicolonial countries, especially in South America.

The New York Times noted that many "American-inspired economic reforms" in Latin America over the last decade "have had limited effect. Growth has been a modest 3 percent, unemployment is up and a third of the population of 180 million people earns $2 a day."

"The leaders said they would 'conduct consultations' if any member state had a disruption of its democratic system," reported the Associated Press, and "committed themselves to halving the number of people living in extreme poverty by the year 2015" without saying how they planned to achieve this.

Canadian prime minister Jean Chretien singled out Haiti for particularly sharp criticism, claiming the recent election there that brought Jean-Bertrand Aristide back to power was flawed. The summit leaders announced plans to send a "fact-finding" mission to Port-au-Prince later this year.

Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, upon returning from the summit meeting, said he had reservations about joining the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. In Quebec he told reporters that his country would sign the declaration but could not accept the scheduled timetable for putting the hemispheric trade pact into operation.

Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso also expressed criticism of the trade pact, and refused to participate in a closing news conference with Bush and seven other leaders. According to the Financial Times, "Brazil's president said the free trade area would be 'irrelevant or worse, undesirable' unless the region's rich countries opened their markets to imports from the poorer ones."

The New York Times reported that various questions of national sovereignty are posed in the trade accords. "Even Canada," the paper wrote, "objects to provisions that would let international investors challenge any nation's laws on the grounds that they threaten the profitability of those investments." For example, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, United Parcel Service is challenging Canada's subsidies for its postal service.

Despite its talk about free trade, Washington maintains a vast array of protectionist policies which will remain true if the new trading bloc comes into being. In relation to Brazil, for example, the U.S. government has placed tariffs of 45.5 percent on 15 of that country's main exports, including, sugar, orange juice, and shoes. According to The Fair Trade Fraud by James Bovard, since 1980, Washington has negotiated more than 170 bilateral accords to restrict imports. These include against the lumber industry in Canada and steel imports from Japan and a number of other countries. The NAFTA accord itself is a 29-chapter book, full of articles of exemptions, tariff and export tax allowances, and other protectionist measures.

In another development, Washington, together with the International Monetary Fund, has been demanding the European Central Bank (ECB) cut its main interest rate from 4.75 percent in order to stimulate economic growth. The U.S. Federal Reserve has cut interest rates by 50 basis points four times this year, while the ECB remains the only bank not to cut interest rates in 2001. Wim Duisenberg, the ECB president, responded, "It seems to me there may be some misconceptions on the American side.... We are confident that we are weathering the storm."
 
 
Related articles:
Capitalist trade pacts
1949 revolution radically transformed China
U.S. government ends 'banana war' dispute with European Union
 
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home