“Polarizing Trade”

Over at Tom Paine, Harley Shaiken says something that badly needs to be said: much opposition to CAFTA simply isn’t a case of “protectionism” vs. “free trade.” (Although some is.) Indeed, it’s perfectly possible to make a free trade case against CAFTA. But I like these closing paragraphs:

The issue is not free trade versus protectionism, but “smart trade” versus “polarizing trade.” Smart trade creates balanced development, while polarizing trade rewards a small circle of winners at the expense of the many.

Smart trade requires two key provisions: core labor rights, backed up by tough enforcement and a development fund targeting infrastructure and education to boost competitiveness. DR-CAFTA does neither. Instead, it condemns Central America to carry its dismal past far into the future. Rejecting it opens the possibility for freer markets and faster income growth in Central America, as well as healthier democracies.


Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.