|
U.S. Returns Empty-Handed from
FTAA Talks in Quito- Looks Toward Cancun...
by Victor Menotti
The United States Trade Representative (U.S.TR)
is declaring total victory at the just-concluded ministerial meeting
in Quito to establish a Free Trade Area of the Americas. (Download
the PDF file)
But a closer examination of its so-called
"seven key objectives" for Quito reveals that the forces of corporate
globalization gained very little, if anything. Nearly all of the
"accomplishments" are already-agreed-to procedures and schedules
for the negotiations. Others are mere proposals that must be fought
out in national debates. Some are even bows to mounting pressure
from the hemisphere's civil society, which filled the streets of
Quito in opposition to FTAA.
What U.S.TR does not explain is the stiff
opposition it faced from Latin American governments, who have seen
their economies spiral downward under the experiment of free trade,
and felt an inevitable backlash from their populations who are rejecting
further liberalization of their economies. Best known is the Brazilian
people's recent election of Lula, who openly campaigned against
FTAA.
U.S.TR failed to establish even provisional
agreements among trade ministers on the controversial issues of
liberalizing investment or services, strengthening corporate protections
for intellectual property, or lowering export subsidies for agriculture,
which are the real sticking points in FTAA. Anticipating great opposition
in Quito, Zoellick set low expectations and is now trying to hail
them as victories for free trade. Civil society in the Americas
should read U.S.TR's "Trade Facts" as a clear sign that we are winning!
Below are U.S.TR's "seven key objectives"
for Quito, followed by an explanation of what they truly mean:
- Launched Hemispheric Cooperation Program
(HCP)
Zoellick's announcement is simply a
recasting of President George W. Bush's proposed Millennium
Challenge Account (MCA), which he first floated at the UN Financing
for Development conference last year in Monterey, Mexico. If
President Bush can convince Congress to give him the money (a
fight which civil society must be heard in this debate), the
U.S. National Security Council will oversee the disbursal of
MCA/HCP funds to poor countries so that they can "increase their
capacity" to participate in trade talks. HCP means that U.S.
taxpayers will foot the bill for helping the hemisphere's poorest
nations to better understand the terms by which the FTAA will
dismantle their economies. USTR perceives Latin Americas' rejection
of free trade as a misunderstanding of its true benefits. MCA/HCP
aims to "correct" the perception so that the free trade agenda
can move forward.
- Energized Market Access Negotiations.
The so-called energy came when trade
ministers "confirmed a detailed schedule for exchanging offers
and requests." This negotiating schedule was generally understood
from earlier meetings and was only reaffirmed in Quito. Regardless,
negotiations will be complicated by some nations rightful unwillingness
to lower their tariffs at a time when the U.S. is raising its
own.
- Assumed - along with Brazil - the chairmanship
of FTAA.
Five years ago, the U.S. and Brazil
were assigned to "assume the chairmanship" of the FTAA for the
final push before the deadline in 2005. That's because they
are the hemispheres two main powers and will have the biggest
differences between them in negotiation positions to be resolved.
Differences between the two have been the main obstacle to finalizing
FTAA. Their "assuming" the responsibly simply means its come
down to crunch time in the negotiations.
- Named strong chairs for FTAA Negotiating
Groups and Committees.
Another already-agreed-to measure. While
the appointment of key people on certain committees is designed
to expedite negotiations, failure to do so would have signaled
a complete collapse of the FTAA process.
- Released second draft of FTAA text.
Only under intense pressure from civil
society throughout the hemisphere did trade ministers relent
to making public the current draft text of FTAA. If true openness
in the negotiating process had been an objective of USTR's,
they would have incorporated input they have been receiving
from civil society and encouraged other governments to do the
same. The only "public hearing" on FTAA held in Washington,
DC by the USTR was announced with only ten days advance notice,
making it practically impossible for any meaningful public participation.
- Consulted with business community.
Consulting with business is an every
day activity for USTR, which has an elaborate bureaucracy of
business advisors (www.ustr.gov/outreach/advise.shtml). It is
not clear why USTR would project what is their normal routine
as an "accomplished objective" other than the fact that they
have nothing else to show as a sign of success.
- Consulted with civil society representatives.
With tens of thousands of protesters
shutting down the country and its capital Quito, government
delegations could not avoid facing civil society, even though
USTR led the effort to prevent any face to face meetings. People
who tried to present USTR with recommendations, but were turned
away repeatedly, sometimes violently (see www.indymedia.org).
Ambassador Zoellick finally agreed when Ecuadorian security
forces began siding with the protesters in their demand for
a meeting with ministers. For the whole, incredible story on
why groups in Quito denouncing the consultation process with
civil society, see Food
First's report .
USTR's "Quito consensus" was meaningless,
and only confirms the growing power of peoples' movements who are
becoming more informed and more mobilized around confronting global
free trade.
Inside US Trade reports that "Trade ministers
of the Western Hemisphere have agreed to negotiating principles
that virtually ensure that talks on liberalizing agriculture in
a Free Trade Area of the Americas will stagnate over the next year,
informed sources said, as countries linked their willingness to
make agricultural concessions in the FTAA to progress in World Trade
Organization talks to cut agriculture subsidies."
WTO, they say, is where a breakthrough will
emerge because it's the global body that involves other countries
(Japan, Europe, India, China) whose participation is necessary for
any "real deal" that addresses the complexities of export subsidies,
market access, anti-dumping, and quantitative restrictions. The
thrust toward WTO does NOT imply that civil society organizing around
FTAA should cease. Indeed, we must build on our efforts to reorient
organizing energy toward the fight when WTO meets September 2003.
So, see you in Cancun!
Back to the Resources
Page
Back to Home Page
|
