Green
Party
FTAA FACT SHEET
Hurting MILLIONS throughout
the Americas to help big corporations.
Free trade is a hot topic this
spring because of the meetings in Quebec to discuss extending NAFTA to
include all of the Americas, in what is being called the Free Trade Area
of the Americas (FTAA). A broad coalition of groups, including
environment, labor, human rights, women's and sustainable development
organizations, are all very concerned about this process.
What's wrong with the FTAA?
Most fundamentally, it
appears to be a carbon copy of NAFTA, which indicates that negotiators
have learned nothing from the NAFTA experience. Based on the results of
NAFTA, here are some reasons why we are concerned:
- The negotiations process
lacks democratic accountability. The U.S. Trade Representative's
office has been conducting negotiations on FTAA behind closed doors.
The talks in Quebec are likewise closed to the public. U.S. and
Canadian business interests have a great deal of influence, while
civil society groups are only invited to submit comments in writing.
Congress has not been involved at all. It is probable that President
Bush will request "fast track" trade negotiating
authority, preventing Congress from having input. Clinton was denied
this authority several years ago when he wanted to expand NAFTA, and
it is hoped that such an undemocratic measure will be defeated
again.
- The FTAA is unfair. Any
unmitigated free trade agreement between rich and poor countries
assumes a level playing field that doesn't exist.
- The rich get richer and the
poor get poorer. Very few people in poor countries have the
resources to do business on an international level. These kinds of
free trade agreements benefit only those few who already have access
and resources. Small business owners and agricultural producers will
find their home markets flooded with cheap imports, and no way to
sell their goods at home or abroad. Starkly unequal wealth
concentration will become worse and levels of extreme poverty will
increase.
- FTAA would give
transnational corporations too much power. Under NAFTA, U.S.
corporations have sued Mexico to lower their environmental and labor
protections. Mexico has lost many cases, and their environment
continues to decay. It is likely that FTAA will have similar
provisions, leading to legally endorsed environmental
degradation and labor exploitation throughout the Americas.
- FTAA undermines local
movements to protect environment and labor both in the U.S. and
abroad by creating a more competitive global environment. Poor
countries are encouraged to use their "comparative
advantage" of cheap labor and low regulations to attract
foreign investment and capital (needed to pay off their debts).
However, there are lots of countries with cheap labor, so there is a
race to the bottom to maintain the comparative advantage of
having even lower wages, even lower labor standards, and even lower
environmental regulations. Treaties like FTAA furthermore make
environmental and labor standards legally difficult.
- The agreement will demand
more stringent application of neo-liberal policy prescriptions to
poor countries. These policies have already been widely imposed as
conditions for World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB),
and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans. Among other things,
they require countries to privatize industry and cut
government spending, often starting with education, health and other
social services. These policies have been shown to be more
detrimental than beneficial on a human level. Even when jobs are
created, the profits go to a few, often in other countries. Most of
the workforce is barely making subsistence wages and, without
serious investment in social services, their children have no
prospect for a better life. The FTAA would create codified
enforcement mechanism for those policies, not giving countries
leeway to choose their own policies.
- Other countries must lift
subsidies and protection, but not the U.S. Notwithstanding the
income inequalities between South and North America, the U.S.
heavily subsidizes its agricultural industry, but FTAA, like NAFTA,
would prevent others from doing the same. NAFTA demanded the lifting
of subsidies in Mexico and elimination of tariffs, although the U.S.
maintains seasonal protectionist bans to protect US crops. It is
likely that FTAA would follow this pattern.
Political Outlook/Actions
President Bush has made FTAA a
priority of his administration. It will be important to fight hard
against "Fast Track" authority and the treaty itself. There
will be important actions and events for fair trade activists around the
U.S. to participate in throughout the Spring. Hold your elected
officials accountable through all-call days and meetings; organize
protests and demonstrations, teach-ins, or caravans. These activities
will culminate in a massive day of action all over the hemisphere on
April 21st in response to a meeting of the 34 negotiating
governments taking place in Quebec City, Canada. We need to put the
pressure on before a bill gets to Congress and then keep our eyes open
for any upcoming legislation.
Fact sheet and commentary
provided by Jonathan Larson.
|