Venezuela confronts the FTAA
Michael
A. Lebowitz (4 October 2003)
Our principle, announced Ramón Rosales (Venezuela’s Minister of
Production and Commerce) is “as much market as possible, and as much
state as necessary.” What that statement, released at the September 2003
WTO meeting in Cancun, means in terms of so-called international trade
agreements can only be understood in the context of what Venezuela was
arguing at Cancun.
Challenging
the effects of “free trade” on human development, calling for an end to
an unjust economic order, for the prioritizing of the fight against
poverty and social exclusion, for putting human rights before corporate
rights, the Venezuelan position called for a re-emphasis upon “the role
of public policy as a tool without which it is impossible to achieve the
stated goal of equitable, democratic, and environmentally sustainable
development.”
In short,
it was a position which directly rejects neo-liberalism and the
international institutions intended to enforce it. And, that is precisely
the stance taken by the government of Hugo Chavez for the discussions of
FTAA. In a statement released in April to delegations participating in
the FTAA Trade Negotiations Committee (and oriented to gaining support
throughout the continent), Venezuela declared that “the FTAA is not
merely a trade agreement”; it establishes “a supranational legal and
institutional system that will eventually prevail over the current system
in our country.” Precisely because of the implications of FTAA for
national sovereignty, Venezuela announced that any FTAA agreement would
be the subject of a national referendum. Indeed, it pointed out that
Article 73 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
requires a referendum:
“International treaties, conventions, and
agreements that could compromise national sovereignty or transfer power
to supranational entities (…) shall be submitted to
referendum.”
In
calling for the people to decide, the Venezuelan government’s own
position would be clear. Ever since the defeated coup of 11 April 2002
and the subsequent opposition sabotage that has produced a crisis, the
document noted, “Venezuela has a new appreciation of the extraordinary
importance of the need for governments to be able to draw on a wide
spectrum of public policies to respond to crises (whether environmental,
political, or economic), as well as to be able to tackle the challenges
and demands associated with fair, sustainable development.” The proposal
for FTAA would prevent this. Indeed, the government argued, “The recent
sabotage of PDVSA, the national oil industry, is a pathetic example of
everything stated in this document.”
Widespread
democratic involvement, though, should not be limited to a vote at the
end. Precisely because of the vast implications of FTAA, Venezuela
declared in its statement to the Trade Negotiations Committee, “we cannot
continue to negotiate as if these were just some trade negotiations in
which only experts and specialists in the different areas of commercial
and international law need participate. Democratic negotiations need to
include in an effective manner all sectors of the population
continent-wide because every sector will be affected to some extent by
the agreements being negotiated.”
And, what
of those popular sectors in Venezuela at this point? Although trade
unions and popular sectors have indicated that they oppose FTAA and all
it stands for, the priority is support for the government in its
resolve--- support in the face of an opposition aided by the US
government and prepared again to do everything possible to remove the
Chavez government. The struggle against international capital and its
goals at this point in Venezuela is a struggle to maintain and deepen the
Bolivarian Revolution.
---------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: Phone (604) 689-9510