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: 

 

1. 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. 
2. The FTAA is unfair. Any unmitigated free trade agreement between rich and poor countries assumes a level playing field that doesn't exist. 
3. 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. 
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.