----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaggi Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Below is the full text of a speech, titled "Globalization, Trade and the > Americas," given by the Canadian Minister for International Trade, Pierre > Pettigrew. The speech was delivered to the Inter-American Development Bank > (IDB) in Washington on August 9th. Pettigrew is the lead Canadian Minister > for the FTAA, and this text is forwarded for informational purposes. It is > full of some choice quotes. Some highlights: > > * the protests in Seattle > "I would even say this: even if there had not been one demonstrator -- not > one single demonstrator against globalization in Seattle -- we would have > failed to launch a ninth round of trade talks last December." > > * some questions for us > "For those who, for whatever reasons, oppose free trade and trade > agreements, let me ask: why would we exclude others from the kind of > prosperity we enjoy, built on trade and engagement with the global > economy? Why condemn to isolation the others of this hemisphere who aspire > to the same quality of life, range of choice and opportunity that we wish > for ourselves? Why deny them the same paths that we ourselves have > followed to prosperity? We cannot -- we must not -- let the voices of > opposition undermine our efforts to ensure that all of our hemispheric > partners share in the prosperity we have enjoyed." > > * clash of "orders" > "In Seattle, we saw a clash between the traditional international order, > with its finite number of actors, represented by 135 ministers, and what I > refer to, without meaning to be pejorative, as the global disorder. This > was really the first time we saw this other world. It was a very bizarre > sort of world, a world of an infinite number of participants, not at all > well-codified, not at all predictable, going in all kinds of directions, > but ironically, often represented by horizontal organizations, whose power > has been greatly enhanced by globalization." > > * the role of civil society > "We can definitely learn something from them [ie. civil society]. But I > feel no hesitation in also saying that it, too, has something to learn > from those of us who are business or government leaders. > > * Pettigrew the Darwinist > "Globalization is, quite simply, a part of the natural evolutionary > process. It goes hand-in-hand with the progress of humanity, something > which history tells us no one can stand in the way of." > > * "the basic thrust of globalization" > "For the past while, we have been witnessing the move from industrial > capitalism to financial capitalism. That's the basic thrust of > globalization. It took us generations to tame the beast of industrial > capitalism." > > * Pettigrew the vulgar Marxist > "But, at least when you're exploited, you exist in a social relationship. > You can organize, clamour for your rights, get a union to fight for you, > get better labour laws by voting for this or that party. And indeed, that > is the story of industrial capitalism." > > * a small hint of insight > "We represent the first generation of the era of financial capitalism, > where we create wealth very, very differently. Now the victims are not > only exploited, they're excluded, because in financial capitalism, you can > be excluded. You may be in a situation where you are not needed to create > that wealth. This phenomenon of exclusion is far more radical than the > phenomenon of exploitation." > > The full speech is below: > > ---- from http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/menu-e.asp ----- > > CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY > > NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY > > THE HONOURABLE PIERRE PETTIGREW, > > MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE, > > TO THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK > > ON > > GLOBALIZATION, TRADE AND THE AMERICAS > > WASHINGTON, D.C. > > August 9, 2000 > > Introduction -- Globalization vs. Internationalization > > Thank you very much. I'm quite pleased to be back in Washington, and I am > certainly honoured to have been asked to be your luncheon speaker today. > > I want to take this opportunity to share my views regarding this new era > of globalization, international trade and, in particular, its impact on > our hemisphere. I say new era of globalization because, to me, > globalization started only 10 to 15 years ago. I don't think we should > confuse it with internationalization. To me, these are two very different > phenomenons. > > In the past, in the era of internationalization, ties between states, each > in control over its own territory, multiplied: these included such things > as defence pacts, treaties and economic co-operation agreements. > Internationalization thus increased the interdependence among societies > designed as nation-states and, in fact, the very word internationalization > seemed to emphasize the impermeability of national, i.e., political, > spaces. > > And now, we have this new phenomenon, globalization, which is so radically > different and even contradictory with the more traditional phenomenon of > internationalization. To me, globalization has had two births. > > Its economic birth was the very day in the mid-80s that we connected > electronically the three major stock exchanges of the world: Tokyo, > London, and New York. Globalization's political birth was a few years > later, on the day that the Berlin Wall fell, in November 1989. > > Seattle Failed for Traditional Reasons, not Globalization > > And so, even though the so-called Battle of Seattle, as the media dubbed > it, was all rhetorically about globalization, I believe the failure to > launch a new round by trade ministers at that particular meeting was > related to tensions and even conflict in the most traditional world of > internationalization, not the one of globalization. Indeed, I would even > say this: even if there had not been one demonstrator -- not one single > demonstrator against globalization in Seattle -- we would have failed to > launch a ninth round of trade talks last December. > > We failed to launch a new round for the most traditional reasons of > clashes among those of the traditional international order -- national > governments. We failed partly because of traditional East-West clashes on > agriculture. The European Union, supported by Japan, and the United > States, supported by the Cairns Group, could not agree. They spent a lot > of time trying to agree but, in the end, did not. > > The North and the South -- the developed and the developing countries -- > also could not agree on what kind of a launch we wanted. Developing > countries, and the least developed in particular, highlighted the > difficulties they face in implementing a large number of WTO [World Trade > Organization] disciplines. > > Despite the grace periods provided under the Uruguay Round agreements, > they argued that they still lack the capacity to administer an > increasingly complex set of rules and regulations, including the "inside > the border" measures that the WTO agreements now require. As I will > mention later, addressing these difficulties through trade-related > capacity building is clearly an area where development banks such as the > IDB [Inter-American Development Bank] can play an important role. > > Seattle also pointed to the need to put much more effort into improving > policy coherence between the international organizations that deal with > trade, economic, social and environmental issues. Enhanced coherence and > mutual support between the policies and activities of the WTO, the > International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and UN agencies such as the > International Labour Organization and the United Nations Environment > Program, will help to ensure that we address these issues by building on > the strengths of the organizations created to deal with them. > > Despite the differences we saw at Seattle, I am confident that WTO members > will be able to agree on the launch of a new round in 2001. Why? Because, > all members know the enormous benefits that international trade can bring > to their economies and societies. > > The Americas -- FTAA Holds Great Potential > > I see, for example, great potential in the discussions we have been having > toward the creation of an FTAA [Free Trade Area of the Americas]. The > Americas contain, at the same time, some of the world's wealthiest > economies and some of its smallest and more vulnerable economies. > > Most share a distinguishing characteristic of economic openness and a > growing reliance on international trade and investment as a means of > promoting economic development. It has thus become increasingly important > that the countries of our hemisphere develop and sustain a level of > international competitiveness demanded by a globalized world. > > A key component to becoming and remaining competitive involves the > negotiation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas. The FTAA represents an > historic opportunity to unite 34 countries of the hemisphere into a free > trade area of impressive proportions. The potential, as I said, is > considerable: it is a market with a combined population of over 800 > million and a combined GDP of $17 trillion. > > But hemispheric free trade is only one part of a broader agenda for > hemispheric good governance and policy coherence. We must remember that > FTAA negotiations were mandated by leaders within the broader framework of > the Summit of the Americas process. The leaders' agenda addresses a range > of issues of direct concern to the citizens of the hemisphere, including > the strengthening of democracy, respect for human rights, co-ordinated > action to combat the drug trade, social and economic development and many > others. Only by moving forward on all of these fronts together can the > nations and peoples of the Americas truly make progress into the 21st > century. > > Canada is proud of the leading role it has in this process: Canada's prime > minister will play host to the hemisphere's leaders at the Summit next > April in Quebec City; and, last November, at the culmination of the > crucial start-up phase of the FTAA negotiation, Canada chaired a meeting > of the hemisphere's trade ministers in Toronto. > > The IDB has been an important player in this process to date and I > encourage you to become even more engaged in designing and supporting > future Summit commitments. > > We place a priority on these negotiations because free trade has been > undeniably good for Canada and for Canadians. Simply put, trade is first, > foremost and always, about people -- people finding rewards for their > efforts, markets for their products and hope for their future. I am > confident that freer trade will help the people of all the FTAA nations to > realize important social and economic gains. > > Globalization has taken on so many negative connotations that the > important message of the real and tangible benefits that economic openness > brings has become drowned out. Living standards are without question > substantially higher because of the linkages between nations. > > Which leads me to the subject of trade opponents. For those who, for > whatever reasons, oppose free trade and trade agreements, let me ask: why > would we exclude others from the kind of prosperity we enjoy, built on > trade and engagement with the global economy? > > Why condemn to isolation the others of this hemisphere who aspire to the > same quality of life, range of choice and opportunity that we wish for > ourselves? Why deny them the same paths that we ourselves have followed to > prosperity? > > We cannot -- we must not -- let the voices of opposition undermine our > efforts to ensure that all of our hemispheric partners share in the > prosperity we have enjoyed. > > An important overarching element of the FTAA negotiating process is > helping the hemisphere's smaller economies realize the benefits of > liberalized trade. And, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the > very dynamic role that the IDB has played, along with other members of the > Tripartite Committee (i.e., the OAS [Organization of American States] and > ECLAC [the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the > Caribbean]), in providing technical assistance to smaller economies in the > hemisphere. > > I have no doubt that a free trade agreement can be successfully negotiated > and implemented between large countries and smaller countries. Canada's > experience with the U.S. is evidence of this and I am confident that the > Canada-Costa Rica FTA negotiations will also bear this out. > > I believe that in today's globalized world, social and economic agendas > are inextricably inter-connected and that government policies and > institutions must recognize and respond to this reality. > > The growth and development that the FTAA will help to generate will in > turn support the over-arching objectives being pursued in the broader > Summit of the Americas agenda, such as improving human rights, promoting > democratic development and eradicating poverty. > > Trade has had a Positive Impact on Environment and Human Rights > > History has shown that as countries achieve greater economic growth and > increased standards of living, higher environmental and labour standards > are realized. While I firmly believe this to be true, I readily > acknowledge that the breadth and scope of what can be achieved on social > issues through trade negotiations is limited. > > But, in saying this, I do not mean to undermine the legitimacy of the > concerns of environmental, labour and human rights groups. I am saying > that government has a responsibility for prudent management of these > issues, that as leaders, we must harness the forces of globalization and > harvest its benefits. We are not powerless to fashion our own futures. In > fact, the WTO and the rules upon which we and 137 other members have > agreed, are an example of what governments can achieve in bringing > direction and order to these global forces. > > But, I believe the right way to tackle these issues is through > institutions with clear expertise and mandates in these areas. For > instance, the recent Organization of American States meeting in Windsor, > Ontario, served as an unmatched regional forum for high-level discussion > on fundamental human rights and democratic development issues. > > By contrast, the central (and proper) focus of the FTAA is hemispheric > economic integration, achieved through a rules-based trade and investment > liberalization system. Increasingly, these norms and standards of the > multilateral trading system -- in which the countries of the Americas > participate -- are being shaped by the network of international agreements > managed and negotiated under the auspices of the World Trade Organization. > > Canada Recognizes the Benefits of an Orderly, Equitable Trade System > > Canada has been and continues to be a strong proponent of rules-based > trade on several levels, be it bilateral, regional or multilateral. Beyond > the NAFTA with the U.S. and Mexico, we have bilateral free trade > agreements with Chile and Israel, are currently involved in free trade > negotiations with Costa Rica, and are exploring a potential free trade > agreement with Singapore. > > An example of this rules-based system at work is in the management of > Canada's long-standing dispute with Brazil over the provision of export > subsidies to the regional aircraft sector. Four successive WTO panels have > ruled that Brazil's Proex export subsidy violates its WTO obligations and > must be withdrawn. Canada values its relationship with Brazil and is > respectful of Brazil's international role and stature. We do, however, > expect that Brazil will comply with its WTO obligations. > > There are those who would style this dispute as pitting a developed > against a developing country. This is not the case. Canada is simply > seeking Brazilian compliance with WTO obligations freely entered into, > something that other developing countries, including India, Argentina and > Indonesia, have done when WTO rulings have gone against them. Canada, too, > has revised its programs when they have been found not to comply with our > obligations, including in this very dispute. > > Rules-based international trade is in the best interests of all countries, > including Brazil. Indeed, Brazil's Minister of Foreign Relations > acknowledged this in a recent letter to the Folha de Sao Paulo in which he > wrote "The rules of the WTO, which Brazil helped to construct and wishes > to preserve and perfect, establish limits for government assistance to > export activities." > > And we should not diminish the importance of the process we are going > through with Brazil. Here we have two countries that, let us say, > enthusiastically disagree. Both of us believe we have a valid argument in > our favour and we are both putting forth the strongest possible effort to > assert our views. But it is important for our citizens to recognize that > we have agreed on how to disagree. > > We have built an institution with processes and rules by which we will > abide. We are battling, but our battle is civilized, our disagreement > orderly, and the rules of engagement clear and equitable. That 137 member > countries have fashioned such an international institution is of immense > importance. It is a symbol of how much countries can achieve in global > institution building and in reaping the benefits of globalization for all. > Nevertheless, it is in some respects a work in progress. > > As became so evident during the WTO Ministerial in Seattle last November, > there is much to be done to ensure that all countries -- both developed > and developing -- can meet the obligations and benefit from the rights > established under the WTO. > > During its recent meeting in Okinawa, the G-8 recognized this challenge > and paid particular attention to the need to ensure integration of > developing countries into the multilateral trading system. The G-8 > acknowledged the importance of a concerted effort from the international > community in trade-related capacity building, ensuring that all WTO > members can take advantage of existing market access concessions. > > Meanwhile, globalization has created, or at least greatly empowered, the > very players who would decline globalization. The irony is that they came > to decry the very movement that brought them there. They seek to diminish > institutions that can help countries bring order to what would otherwise > be a very disorderly world trade system. > > Globalization, by definition, challenges the role of government, ignoring > not only economic but also political borders. Corporations are now able to > integrate functions from one space to the other independently of borders, > as if they did not exist. > > Globalization, then, is the result of a combination of a number of > factors, including technological advances, mostly in the technologies of > information, trade liberalization and deregulation. To me, it represents > the triumph of horizontal management, horizontal power against the > vertical power of the state on a given territory, and these are very, very > different forces. > > Seattle -- Clash Between Two Worlds > > In Seattle, we saw a clash between the traditional international order, > with its finite number of actors, represented by 135 ministers, and what I > refer to, without meaning to be pejorative, as the global disorder. This > was really the first time we saw this other world. It was a very bizarre > sort of world, a world of an infinite number of participants, not at all > well-codified, not at all predictable, going in all kinds of directions, > but ironically, often represented by horizontal organizations, whose power > has been greatly enhanced by globalization. > > These two worlds met, and they didn't like one another very much. The > predictable outcome was and remains tension, which we will be living with > well into the next century. And though governments will have to deal with > it, this tension is not exclusively between governments; it also involves > competing sectors of society, industries, and entire socio-political, > cultural, ethnic, and economic blocs, as well as traditional > nation-states. > > We previously had this wonderful, predictable international system -- so > predictable that we knew everyone's speech ahead of time, because it had > been repeated so very often, and in any case, everyone checked in advance > with everyone else to make sure that no one would be offended. > > And, now comes this new world, quite anonymous, quite peculiar, absolutely > unpredictable, because of the number of participants, and it is sometimes > real, often virtual. So as these two worlds collided, they both felt -- > quite rightly -- that they represented something valid and credible. > > Role of Civil Society > > As we all know, civil society has an important and useful role to play in > strengthening democracy. I believe governments should seek to support and > strengthen civil society. Part of this support must involve active > engagement, in the form of a true dialogue aimed at developing > constructive partnerships on a broad range of issues. We can definitely > learn something from them. But I feel no hesitation in also saying that > it, too, has something to learn from those of us who are business or > government leaders. > > When I met with civil society leaders and the Canadian representatives of > many NGOs, they said to me, "We hate globalization." My response was, "But > I'm a member of the government, here with a mandate from my Cabinet. It is > far more difficult for me to accept globalization, because globalization > is threatening the role of governments and states everywhere. We are > affected in a much more significant way than you -- this phenomenon has > little or no respect for the legitimacy of government." > > I said, "You ARE globalization. You, the NGOs, who can now in 48 hours > gather through the 'net, at very low cost, thousands of people to > demonstrate -- you ARE a proof that globalization is very effective and is > changing the name of the game." > > My conclusion from that discussion was that many did not understand what I > was saying, because most people do not fully understand what globalization > is about. Too many people think globalization is a policy that governments > have dreamed up, and they don't understand that this is something that we, > too, are confronted with. They also don't understand that this is not > something that is being imposed by corporations or big business, because, > as we know, many of them are finding it very, very tough and challenging > to deal with. > > We all know most multinationals were very comfortable with the old > international order. The formula for success for a multinational was > simply to replicate faithfully all its functions in every country through > the creation of subsidiaries. But now, multinationals are being replaced > by global corporations, which simply integrate functions independently of > any political borders, where they find it most advantageous to develop. > > So, the multinational, too, is being challenged by globalization. It is > being replaced by the far-more flexible global company. The multinational > is starting to look like a dinosaur now. That's the different kind of > world in which we are living. > > Globalization is, quite simply, a part of the natural evolutionary > process. It goes hand-in-hand with the progress of humanity, something > which history tells us no one can stand in the way of. > > Emergence of Notion of Corporate Social Responsibility > > While in many instances corporations are struggling themselves to deal > with the changes that globalization has brought, I would say that there is > greater recognition today of the important contribution corporations can > make to the social and environmental aspects of governance. Indeed, civil > society is calling on the business community to pay greater attention to > these issues. > > In many countries the business communities are responding through the > adoption of voluntary codes of conduct that promote socially responsible > behaviour in business operations. For example, a number of Canadian > multinational enterprises have adopted the International Code of Ethics > for Canadian Business, which promotes ethical conduct in many areas, > including environmental protection and human rights. > > At the multilateral level, I recently joined other OECD [Organization for > Economic Co-operation and Development] ministers in adopting the revised > OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. This multilateral > instrument promotes corporate social responsibility and enjoys the > collaboration of governments, the business community, labour organizations > and other interested parties of civil society. These are very positive > developments that Canada supports and hopes to see advanced in the Western > Hemisphere. > > Moving from Industrial Capitalism to Financial Capitalism > > For the past while, we have been witnessing the move from industrial > capitalism to financial capitalism. That's the basic thrust of > globalization. It took us generations to tame the beast of industrial > capitalism. > > Industrial capitalism, we will all agree, has certainly brought humanity > to the highest level of economic, social, and cultural development we've > ever seen. It brought a lot of prosperity which we learned to redistribute > in some very effective ways. > > Industrial capitalism 200 years ago also brought about the phenomenon of > exploitation. Politically, we learned to tame industrial capitalism, to > make sure that people would stop being exploited. But, at least when > you're exploited, you exist in a social relationship. You can organize, > clamour for your rights, get a union to fight for you, get better labour > laws by voting for this or that party. And indeed, that is the story of > industrial capitalism. > > We represent the first generation of the era of financial capitalism, > where we create wealth very, very differently. Now the victims are not > only exploited, they're excluded, because in financial capitalism, you can > be excluded. You may be in a situation where you are not needed to create > that wealth. This phenomenon of exclusion is far more radical than the > phenomenon of exploitation. Exclusion may be the biggest public policy > challenge facing governments today. > > In my view this is where regional development banks can play a vital role, > since they have the most "hands on" knowledge of their regions. And so, I > see an important role for the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in > helping countries achieve good economic governance through coherent and > mutually supportive trade, financial and social policies. > > We know from experience that policies of free markets and free trade will > only lift people out of poverty if these economic policies are supported > by good politics -- including democracy, regulatory reform, inclusiveness > of stakeholders in policy making, adequate social safety nets, investment > in workers, and protection of the environment and human rights. > > With respect to trade, I believe the excellent job the Bank does at > emphasizing growth to overcome poverty could be strengthened by giving > greater emphasis to trade-led economic growth. We have seen movement on > this front from other international institutions. Six other agencies -- > under the auspices of the Integrated Framework -- are now working together > to help support least-developed countries in meeting WTO obligations, in > particular through trade-related technical assistance and capacity > building. > > This includes the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which > have agreed to factor trade into their poverty reduction planning through > Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), a useful move since it allows > each country to identify its own specific group of priorities and > constraints. > > I encourage other donors to include such considerations into their own > poverty reduction exercises and to work with international and regional > institutions to meet countries' needs. > > This integrated, coherent approach is important for agencies such as the > IDB. The WTO, which is not a development institution, does not have the > funds and cannot take on the job of trade-related capacity building on its > own. > > I therefore urge the IDB to take a leadership role in the Americas in this > area; to join with regional partners to develop regional and > country-specific views on how trade-related capacity building might be > addressed and how countries' efforts to integrate into -- and benefit from > -- the international economy might be supported. > > Thank you. > > > [end] > > > > > > ---------------------------- ftaa-l ----------------------------- > resisting the FTAA and capitalist globalization > mobilizing for Quebec City, April 2001 > creating alternatives > ----- > to unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > with the following text only: unsubscribe > ---------------------------- ftaa-l ----------------------------- _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
