FTAA: my two cents worth

[Victor Milne]

Trade may produce more jobs in poor countries, as Ed Weick claims, but does that mean we can't have job-producing trade unless we sign on to this particular deal (FTAA)?   Does the kind of free trade promoted by corporations in fact raise anyone's living standard anywhere? Two quick counter examples:   (a) The notorious banana war between the US and the EU. The EU was (heresy) giving preference to banana producers in the former West Indian colonies of some member nations even though the prices might be slightly higher. It was repeatedly stated that the small producers in these island nations were at least giving their workers a halfway decent living wage. The US declared war because huge American-owned corporations were being frozen out of this market. It was said that these corporations were highly exploitive of their Central American workers. Just coincidentally Chiquita had contributed about half a million to Bill Clinton's re-election campaign. Is this true? Or is this just propaganda?   (b) For at least a decade now I have been reading that in the maquiladora free trade zones of Mexico the real wages have gone down with the introduction of American-owned factories. One writer who makes this assertion is Mel Hurtig in "The Betrayal of Canada." Hurtig certainly has a point of view on this issue, but I would consider him a meticulous writer who always bases his arguments on official statistics.   I believe, to borrow the phrasing of a famous resolution in the British House of Commons, the power of corporations has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. Surely, WTO, MAI, NAFTA and FTAA are none of them effective means of diminishing the power of corporations.