Some Regional Free Trade Agreements
Author and Page information
This print version has been auto-generated from http://www.globalissues.org/article/44/some-regional-free-trade-agreements
Free trade agreements are numerous around the world. They are designed to enhance freer trade of goods (and often services), in the belief that it will be beneficial for all parties involved and lead to further economic development and growth (based on neoliberal economic ideology1).
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)
The FTAA is seen as a smaller version of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment4 (MAI) and a larger version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is further described below. On the one hand, the same fears as with the MAI, which would give even more powers5 to foreign investors over national governments, are seen here.
Yet, Latin American countries also fear that if they do impose some regulation, then that will likely pose an obstacle to investment in that country, as investors would simply go where there are less so-called restrictions. Given the need in many Latin American nations to provide for the large poor population, the investment takes on a slightly more sense of urgency. However, if corporations are able to invest in that country without regulations6, then their accountability for any problems that may result is diminished. A nasty catch 22 or race to the bottom.
April 2001, Quebec, Canada, saw a meeting of leaders from the hemisphere to discuss the FTAA.
The United States, being the dominant economic power in the region, as well as the world is obviously a major factor in the FTAA. The U.S. is very supportive of the FTAA and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) wishes to expand the trade in services which would imply the privatization of health, education and other public services. It would be similar to what is promoted via the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) at the World Trade Organization. (For more about GATS, visit this web site’s section on GATS7).
Furthermore, as pointed out in this radio show9 back in April 2001 leading up to the FTAA meeting in Quebec, it has been difficult for the public to get access to the FTAA documents, even though major corporations have ready access to it. Even the world’s largest journalists’ group, the International Federation of Journalists, has raised concerns about the secrecy10 around the FTAA despite the fact that it impacts the lives of roughly 800 million people.
Unfortunately, almost predictably, as with other protests around the world, the protests in Quebec at the FTAA meeting the weekend of April 20th, 2001, were accompanied by police violence, and even some protestor violence. The violence from a minority of protestors has served to discredit the movement a little bit, which is a shame and cannot be accepted11 by others who are also against the FTAA and the current forms of globalization. The media concentrated on the sensationalism and the minority of violent protestors, ignoring in that respect, the majority of the non-violent protestors. As this commentary12 suggests, many in the mainstream either didn’t really want to, or try to understand what protestors were protesting.
End of October 2002 saw another FTAA round in Quito, Ecuador. As Food First reported13,
after the worst of the police violence [on October 31, 2002] against the tens of thousands of indigenous people, farmers, students and other members of civil society from the across the Americas had taken place, a police platoon, including various officers, rebelled against their own government, and joined with indigenous leaders and other protesters in demanding that the trade ministers from 34 countries meeting to negotiate the FTAA agree to receive a delegation from the protesters carrying a declaration of opposition to the FTAA. The protestors voices heard in the negotiations led to some embarrassment for key delegates, such as those from the U.S., and as the above article continued, quoting Peter Rosset, director of Food First,
'After today’s Seattle-like protests,' concluded Mr. Rosset, 'the U.S. government and the transnational corporations can never again claim that opposition to free trade comes only from a small group of northern environmentalists. It is abundantly clear that people from all walks of life, across all of Latin America, do not want anything to do with the FTAA, the World Trade Organization or any other manifestation of trade liberalization.'
For more about the FTAA, check out the following links:
- The Quebec14 part of the ZMagazine web site provides many articles, analysis and reports leading up to, during and since the FTAA protests, as well as numerous articles on first hand accounts from Quebec, and on neoliberal free trade in general.
- The MAI Shell Game15. This is a good primer on the FTAA, with comparisons to NAFTA.
- A20.org Stop the FTAA16 web site provides information about the FTAA and is opposed to it. April 20, 2001 saw protests from some 20,000 people, in Quebec. Many links to other sites are provided as well as additional articles.
- FTAA official web site17
- Free Trade Area of the Americas18, by Karen Hansen-Kuhn, from The Development GAP, appearing in Foreign Policy In Focus Volume 6, Number 12 April 2001.
- April Archives19 of the radio show Democracy Now! has a number of shows on the FTAA.
- "Chasing the holy grail of free trade20" from le Monde Diplomatique, April 2001, criticizes the FTAA.
- The Preamble Center has a section on the FTAA21. A noteworthy article of theirs includes:
- This briefing paper22 entitled:
Recent Experiences with International Capital Markets: Lessons for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)explains well some of the problems we have seen in the Latin American and Asian financial crisis in the last few years and how still, the FTAA ignores these.
- This briefing paper22 entitled:
- "Sovereign Corporations23" by William Greider is an example of structuring inequality into law.
- "Free Trade? Someone Always Has to Pay24" by B.Kite, May 2, 2001, from Business Week looks at some of the realities.
- "Brazil Increasingly Unenthusiastic about U.S. FTAA Proposals25" by Matthew Flynn, Americas Program, February 1, 2002
- "Many Oppose Trade Deal26" by Marc Cooper, The Nation Magazine, February 11, 2002
A predecessor to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) we have the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, set up by the United States of America, Canada and Mexico. It gives an indication of the potential impact a worldwide agreement like the MAI would have had if it had been allowed to formulate. Under the NAFTA agreement for example, corporations can sue a country27 if it is deemed to obstruct free trade. What could constitute an obstruction? Well, take the following for example:
- Canada’s attempt to protect its citizen’s health from the effects of a fuel additive was overturned and deemed as an obstruction to free trade28. Canada was sued by a US chemical manufacturing corporation that produces this additive.
- Mexico wanted to prevent a hazardous waste disposal plant from being set up by a US firm. It also extended the proposed area into an environmental zone as it was found to be an ecologically sensitive area. That was enough for a US firm to claim grounds to sue under the NAFTA treaty. In fact, it turns out that Mexico is ordered to pay the US company $17 million29.
- A Canadian-based company, Methanex Corporation, filed against the United States, claiming that California’s decision to phase out the use of its gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) cost the company 970 million dollars. There were potentially high levels of MTBE in California’s drinking supply.
The priorities of aid and development, combined with trade agreements can also affect hunger, as the following quote illustrates: