I send this material in response to Keith's request for alternative
proposals for creating trade agreements. I have included the
acknowledgements and general principles sections. Happy reading.
Brian McAndrews
----------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives for the Americas
Building a People's Hemispheric Agreement
Acknowledgements
This document reflects an ongoing, collaborative process to establish
concrete and viable alternatives, based on the
interests of the peoples of our hemisphere, to the Free Trade Area of
the Americas (FTAA). It is the second draft of
a document initially prepared for the April 1998 Peoples' Summit of
the Americas-a historic gathering of activists
determined to change the prevailing approach to trade and investment
policy in the Western Hemisphere.
This is a working document, designed to stimulate further debate and
education on an alternative vision. The paper
focuses on positive proposals, while dealing only implicitly with the
impact of "neo-liberalism" and free trade
agreements on our countries. At this stage of the struggle, it is not
enough to oppose, to resist and to criticize. We
must build a proposal of our own and fight for it.
This document draws upon the contributions of individuals too
numerous to name. Over the course of many years,
hundreds of people have participated in discussions, helped draft
documents, or conducted educational or
organizing activities around an alternative vision for our
hemisphere. To a large extent, this paper is a culmination
of all of these efforts.
The individuals primarily responsible for writing, editing, and
coordinating the development of this document
include:
Sarah Anderson (Institute for Policy Studies, USA)
Alberto Arroyo (RMALC, Mexico)
Peter Bakvis (CSN, Quebec)
Patty Barrera (Common Frontiers, Canada)
John Dillon (Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice/Common
Frontiers, Canada)
Karen Hansen Kuhn (Development GAP, USA)
David Ranney (University of Illinois/Chicago, USA)
The following individuals also made significant contributions to the
writing and editing:
Quebec:
Marcela Escribano (Alternatives/ RQIC),
Dorval Brunelle (Groupe de Recherche sur l'Integration Continentale-UQAM),
Luc Brunet (CEQ), Robert Demers (FTQ),
France Laurendeau (FTQ),
H�l�ne Lebrun (CEQ)
United States:
John Cavanagh (Institute for Policy Studies),
Terry Collingsworth (International Labor Rights Fund),
Rob Scott (Economic Policy Institute),
Lance Compa (Cornell University)
Mexico:
Andres Penaloza (RMALC),
Teresa Gutierrez, Luz Paula Parra R and the Comision Mexicana de
Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos
Humanos (CMDPDHAC),
Hilda Zalasar (Desarrollo, Ambiente y Sociedad/ RMALC),
Alejandro Villamar (RMALC),
Bertha Lujan (FAT/ RMALC),
Juan Manuel Sandoval and the Seminario Permanente de Estudios
Chicanos, Matilde Arteaga Zaragoza (FAT/
RMALC)
and all those who made proposals to the Women's Forum at the Santiago Summit
Canada:
Sheila Katz (Canadian Labour Congress),
Ken Traynor (Canadian Environmental Law Association),
John Foster (University of Saskatchewan/Common Frontiers),
Tony Clarke (Polaris Institute),
Bruce Campbell (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives),
Carlos Torres, Daina Z. Green, the Ecumenical Coalition for Economic
Justice and the Common Frontiers Steering
Committee Central America:
Raul Moreno and Alberta Enriquez (FUNDE)
We would also like to thank:
Renato Martins (Cut Brasil),
Coral Pey and RECHIP (Red Chile por una Iniciativa de los Pueblos),
CETES (Centro de estudios sobre Transnacionalizion, Economia y
Sociedad, Chile).
And, our translators:
English & Spanish: Daina Z. Green,
French: Philippe Duhamel,
Portugese: Vincente De Mello
General Principles
Background
No country can nor should remain isolated from the global economy.
This does not mean, however, that the current
"neo-liberal" or free market approach to globalization is the only,
much less the best, form of economic integration.
This dominant free market approach (embodied in the North American
Free Trade Agreement, large multinational
corporations' negotiating agenda for the Free Trade Area of the
Americas, and the temporarily stalled Multilateral
Agreement on Investment) argues that the global market on its own
will allocate and develop the best possibilities
for each country. Thus, free trade does not simply involve opening
ourselves to global trade; it also entails
renouncing our role as active subjects in determining our future, and
instead allowing the market to decide the future
for us. According to this view, it is unnecessary for us to envision
the kind of society we want to be or could be.
We only need to eliminate all obstacles to global trade, and the
market itself will take on the task of offering us the
best of all possible worlds.
The difference between this dominant approach and the alternative
vision presented in this document lies not in
whether we accept the opening of our economies to trade. The two
fundamental differences are the following: 1)
whether to have a national plan we can fight for or let the market
determine the plan, and 2) whether capital,
especially speculative capital, should be subject to international regulation.
The recent trend has been to allow all capital, even speculative
capital, free rein, and let the world follow capital's
interests. We argue that history has demonstrated that the market on
its own does not generate development, let
alone social justice. In contrast, we propose a world economy
regulated at the national and supra-national levels in
the interest of peace, democracy, sustainable development and
economic stability. Our position in this regard is very
clear: we cannot remain on the sidelines, but must claim our role as
valid stakeholders in the globalization dialogue.
We must refuse to accept the current neo-liberal form of
globalization as irreversible. We must not only reduce its
negative consequences, but put forward a positive alternative.
We must find ways to take creative advantage of globalization and not
passively submit to it. As citizens of the
Americas, we refuse to be ruled by the law of supply and demand, and
claim our role as individuals rather than
simple commodities governed by the laws of the market. Free trade has
produced social and economic exclusion.
This has resulted in the creation of a social stratum of citizens
devalued by the current economic system and the
societies that support it. Exclusion renders people unable to enter
or re-enter the economic circuit, leading to a
process of social "disqualification" and the loss of active
citizenship. Anyone who has felt the negative effects of the
transition to free trade, has become chronically unemployed, or whose
job is precarious, lives and knows this
exclusion.
We are not opposed to the establishment of rules for regional or
international trade and investment. Nor does our
criticism of the dominant, externally-imposed form of globalization
imply a wish to return to the past, to close our
economies and establish protectionist barriers, or to press for
isolationist trade policies. But the current rules have
not helped our countries overcome, nor even reduce, our economic
problems. We propose alternative rules to
regulate the global and hemispheric economies based on a different
economic logic: that trade and investment should
not be ends in themselves, but rather the instruments for achieving
just and sustainable development.
Our proposal also promotes a social logic that includes areas such as
labour, human rights, gender equity, the
environment, and minorities-that is, previously excluded issues and people.
While our critique and proposal have a technical basis, they also
spring from an ethical imperative. We refuse to
accept the market as a god which controls our lives. We do not accept
the inevitability of a model of globalization
which excludes half or more of the world's population from the
benefits of development. We do not accept that
environmental degradation is the inevitable and necessary evil
accompanying growth. A profound ethical imperative
pushes us to propose our own model of society, one supported by the
many men and women united in hope for a
more just and humane society for themselves and future generations.
Guiding Principles:
1. Democracy and Participation
Debates, decision-making, and framework building in matters of
economic integration have mostly been dominated
by financial, corporate, and political �lites. Greater
democratization in trade and investment decision-making must
be introduced. International agreements should be ratified by
citizens through direct consultation: for example,
through plebiscite or national referendum.
The democratization of debates and decision-making is a necessary
precondition, but not sufficient in itself for the
development of new just and sustainable rules on investment,
environment, and labour. Citizens must not only
approve economic and social policies, but also participate in their
formulation, implementation, and evaluation.
Furthermore, they must be able to change or modify these policy
directions. In order to realize this goal, it may be
necessary to implement special initiatives to guarantee access to
debate for marginalized or oppressed social groups,
including women.
Global corporations have grown so large that they can no longer be
effectively controlled by our governments. We
need new instruments to reassert public control and citizen
sovereignty over these firms. The political stability
needed for sustainable development requires agreements on economic
integration to include mechanisms to ensure
democratic security. Stability should be based on democratic
participation and not on coercion. Any agreement
should promote democracy in the Americas, without being
interventionist in internal affairs. Democratic and
non-coercive security entails civilian monitoring (accountable to
citizens) of the forces of law and order. Civilian
control is required, for example, to halt the arms race and the
militarization of broad areas of the Americas which is
currently being conducted under the pretext of fighting arms and drug
trafficking and drug production.
International democratization requires the reform of United Nations
institutions, including the Security Council, as
well as international financial and trade institutions. The reforms
must be based on consultation in every country
and should be oriented to serving humankind's objectives: sustainable
development and democracy and peace based
on justice and respect for human dignity.
Such institutions should not continue to be the tools of large
multinational corporations and nuclear powers. The
democratization of the world and inter -American system must also
stop the exclusion of countries for ideological or
political reasons, as is currently the case with Cuba. All
integration agreements must ensure that the defence and
promotion of human rights, taken in the broadest sense, is also
globalized. That is, not only civil and political rights
and individual protections should be included, but also the
collective rights of peoples and their communities:
economic, social, cultural, and environmental. Special attention
should be given to the rights of indigenous
communities and peoples, and mechanisms put in place to eliminate all
forms of discrimination and the oppression
of women.
2. Sovereignty and social welfare
The rules flowing from agreements should preserve the power of
individual countries to set high standards of
living, valuing dignified work, the creation of enough good jobs,
healthy communities, and a clean environment
within their borders. There should be no limitations on the
sovereignty of peoples, expressed at the state, provincial
or local levels. In today's world, economic sovereignty, stability
and social welfare require making productive
economic activities a priority, while discouraging speculative
investment and regulating the free flow of footloose
capital. Corporate interests should not undermine the economic
sovereignty of our countries.
Economic integration should represent a commitment to improve the
quality of life for all. Our countries should not
be promoted on the basis of low wages, systematic discrimination
against women or other groups, lack of social
protections or lax enforcement. National competitiveness cannot be
rooted in the deterioration of living standards
and/or the environment. Equalization of standards should be achieved
through upward harmonization. Trade and
integration accords, as well as domestic economic policies, should
include social objectives, time-tables, indicators
of social impact, and corrective remedies.
National governments must protect local efforts aimed at achieving
viable, economically sustainable and
food-self-sufficient communities, both urban and rural.
Giving priority to welfare in international agreements means reducing
military budgets and allocating resources to
people's education and health. Money saved through military
reductions in powerful nations should be channelled
toward an international war on poverty.
Combatting drug production, trafficking and consumption should be an
element of integration accords. Rather than
taking a purely military approach, however, this should be achieved
through mass educational campaigns, the
elimination of the poverty driving this lucrative business, fighting
against corruption and the involvement in the
drug trade of high-level authorities, and other measures aimed at the
root causes of the problem.
International agreements must preserve the sovereignty of nation
states over domestic matters and in the application
of their own laws. They should not allow for the presence of armed
troops or foreign police forces within the
borders of a sovereign nation.
3. Reduce inequalities
A main objective of any agreement should be the reduction of
inequalities within and among nations, between
women and men, and among races.
Among nations: The rush toward the integration of highly
unequal economies without social protections is
creating a climate in which large corporations can reduce the
standard of living and wages in all regions of
the world. The new rules should include mechanisms to reduce
imbalance among nations through raising
living standards in the poorest countries. This would not only
be a step toward meeting the demands for
justice and equity in these countries. It would also reduce
the power of corporations to take advantage of
such inequalities to weaken standards and wages everywhere by
threatening to move production to areas
where labour costs and environmental protections are lower.
Within nations: Inequalities and extreme poverty have been on
the increase for more than a decade in the
Americas. The new rules should reduce these inequalities,
encouraging redistribution of income, land and
natural resources.
Between women and men and among races: Women, people of
colour, and indigenous people have had to
shoulder a disproportionate share of the economic and social
decline caused by neo-liberal policy. The cuts
to public sector services and employment and the reduction of
secure employment and democratic
structures have personally affected more women then men and
have hit girls harder than boys.
When resources are scarce, decisions made by many families and
societies, consciously or unconsciously, tend to
favour males. On top of this, as society's traditional care-givers,
women end up with the responsibility to help
others whose access to jobs or publicly-funded programs have been
cut. This burden comes in addition to existing
disparities in the economic, legal, social, and political position of
women in countries throughout the hemisphere.
Discrimination must be ended by implementing new strategies and
economic models to reverse the effects of current
policies. Countries should also meet existing international
obligations to achieve equity and implement social
programs and intensify international cooperation toward this end.
4. Sustainability
Along with the war on poverty, sustainability and protection of the
environment are the fundamental challenges for
any economic strategy or integration agreement. Trade agreements
should give priority to the quality of
development, which implies establishing social and environmental
limits to growth.
Sustainability and the welfare of the population should take
precedence over short-term profits.
The new rules on integration should allow for more democratic control
of land and natural resources and genuine
respect for indigenous rights and land. Rich countries and major
corporations have accumulated an ecological debt
and occupy an "ecological footprint"1 far greater than their
population and territory warrants. New agreements
should allocate the costs of transition towards a sustainable model
based on principles which recognize common
concerns and different responsibilities. A truly sustainable
alternative agreement would also include a
comprehensive restructuring of incentives and rules designed to
ensure that industrial production reflects its true,
long-term costs.
Finally, efforts to promote sustainability should go beyond the
natural world to include social sustainability,
including the protection of the welfare of girls and boys, as well as
family groups, and minority rights. This
requires the creation of effective sanctions against policies which
attract investment through promises of low wages,
super-exploitation of workers, especially women, or a free hand in
exploiting natural resources in areas where the
population is under the control of local �lites.
