Katie
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Beedy Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:51:08 AM US/Eastern
To: "Katie Greenman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fw: The Illogic of "Free Trade"
----- Original Message -----
From: Beedy Parker
To: print
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject: The Illogic of "Free Trade"
The Illogic of Free Trade: Some key reasons why so-called "free trade" is not fulfilling its more benign goals.
Assuming the following to be among the goals of those promoting "free trade" (giving the benefit of doubt):
1) - to make everybody in the world better off.
2) - to distribute wealth more equitably
3) - to increase democratic governance
4) - through international trade and resulting increased contact, to increase cultural understanding and thereby reduce
violence and wars.
5) - to encourage efficient production and profitability.
I propose that these goals are not being met for the following reasons:
1) "Free Trade" cannot increase general welfare, internationally or internally, without universal conservation or air, water, soil and biomass, without protection of the functions of the biosphere, without limits to consumption and population, in other words, limits to "growth". No controls are planned and might not be enforceable.
2) "Free Trade" treaties are aimed at increasing international commerce with no provision for equitable income distribution or of access to resources, within or between nations. The effect has been to polarize income and political power.
3)" Democracy", as we ideally view it, is not practiced in most countries ( and in the US, the population is largely ignorant and passive where trade treaties are concerned), so the international trade agreements are made in the interest of large corporations and oligarchies and do not represent the interests of many sectors. ( True democracy means empowerment to be part of ongoing decision making on issues affecting one's life and welfare, not merely a vote for a well advertized person. And true democracy requires full information and an unencumbered press).
4) Increased international trade, without environmental, human rights, social and labor rights protection, can and does increase internal and international tensions and violence. It can be called "economic aggression" and is viewed as such by many countries and by the displaced and impoverished within many countries.
5) "Efficient" production methods usually means mechanization and the use of toxic chemicals, so as to employ and control less labor ("productivity" up equals employment down), so more people have less source of income and less equality of income distribution. Uncontrolled population growth, stimulated by displacement, poverty and powerlessness, makes it all worse. On the other hand, global competition can promote the opposite effect, promoting the abuse of labor as in the slavery-like conditions of the maquiladoras with no health protection and rock-bottom wages.
There are other problems with "free trade" as we see it, like the destruction of local commerce, small scale local production, communities and culture. Most crucial is the loss of food sovereignity, the ability to feed one's community with local production, which most of the world's peoples depend on. Historically and at present, famines are caused by a combination of weather change and lack of local control over food supply.
"Fair Trade", as it is proposed, would be international, and internal, trade that conserves and encourages local productivity and communities, environmental protection, human and civil rights, and does not necessarily maximize international trade. Fair Trade items and commodities should be limited to excess capacity, not necessary to local consumption, and to non-essential products, produced in environmentally sustainable ways. Protections would be put in place to prevent the growth of monopolies and monocultures in any locations, so that communities could be partly self sustaining, able to feed themselves regionally, and not dependant on fickle international markets.
