Three Strikes, Is FTAA NAFTA-Expansion Out?

April 10th, 2004, 03:41 PM

Latest Meeting to Revive Free Trade Area of the Americas Collapses in Buenos Aires; Late-April Puebla Negotiations Canceled; 2005 Deadline in Jeopardy

Statement by Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch

This is the third "save-the-Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) emergency meeting" that has collapsed since the Miami FTAA Ministerial, which itself narrowly escaped a full public implosion.

Three strikes and the FTAA is out: Ten years of NAFTA's negative real-life effects have made it politically impossible for most countries to sign up for an FTAA-NAFTA expansion.

It's time to bury the failed NAFTA model, pull the plug o*n the comatose FTAA and start over with rules aimed at pulling up wages and environmental and consumer standards in the hemisphere.

Given the deep deadlock between blocs of countries with opposing views of what an FTAA should be, it is amazing that the Bush administration still insists that the FTAA is alive. Clearly the Bush administration view of the FTAA as a full NAFTA expansion has been rejected. And as support drops among the U.S. public for trade policies like the FTAA, which promote a race to the bottom in living standards and the environment, it becomes increasingly clear that U.S. negotiators are not representing the American people.

Background: Trade negotiators from nine countries of the proposed 34-nation FTAA met in Buenos Aires o*n March 31 and April 1. The goal of this meeting was to resolve several key deadlocks and build consensus about a common set of FTAA obligations that countries could approve at a planned April Vice Ministerial Trade Negotiating Committee (TNC) scheduled for Puebla, Mexico. They did not succeed. This meeting's implosion follows the collapse of an early February 2004 TNC meeting in Puebla and an early March meeting in Buenos Aires (which was called to undo the February TNC deadlock). Both meetings ended with acrimony and without agreement. Now, for the third time in a row, this week's "save-the-FTAA summit" has collapsed. The next scheduled FTAA TNC, which had been planned for late April, has been canceled, with the earliest possible rescheduling being in six weeks. This dramatic development makes it all but impossible even for a scaled-back FTAA to be completed by the Jan. 1, 2005, deadline. Civil society opponents of FTAA, including some 3,000 people protesting the FTAA summit in Buenos Aires, have long demanded that FTAA talks be terminated.

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit http://www.citizen.org.

(Originally post at www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca)

April 10th, 2004, 04:15 PM

The slow death of NAFTA actually started at the WTO summit in Cancun when the developing nations stood up to the US and EU over farm subsidies. Jean Chretien backed the developing nations then, one of his few useful acts.

Let's hope that Martin has the integrity to do the same now and that Steven Harper never gets his greasy little fingers on the levers of power. We can beat thing.

April 10th, 2004, 11:40 PM

Disturbing events as of late - while I dont put full weight behind early polls - it does seem as though harper and team are moving up. Dare I say even into a minority government?

Those that see whats coming with that need to say it loud and clear - Harper is Mulroney - only worse.

April 11th, 2004, 01:07 AM

Ack! Tell me about it!

In the early days I was much for the Canadian Alliance until I learned more about NAFTA and the way it affects our great country. Since that time, I can't really stand behind any major party. The NDP are socialists who would turn our country into pure chaos. The Liberals are... the liberals. They never help anything. The PC, while having a good stand on some issues, have been dissolved.

It seems as though Canada is turning into a 2 party system! Scary.

April 11th, 2004, 06:55 AM

You really should learn more about the NDP, Andem. They are socialists...they want to preserve our social programs. They've also been the only party to consistently speak up for the rights of Canadians. There is absolutely no evidence that they would Canada to slip into chaos, that's a lie put forth by Stephen Harper to avoid addressing issues and answering questions.

April 11th, 2004, 12:43 PM

Have to disagree with that statement. The ndp had an opportunity in Ontario for four years with Bob Rae at the helm.

They proved they are socialists. They taxed business out of the province and spent the province into a a deficit never seen before.

I don't know what you mean by speak up for rights. I thought we had a Constitution that took care of that.

What lie are you talking about?

April 11th, 2004, 02:45 PM

I agree with grimy.

I base my opinion on the NDP as their experience in Ontario government. No way would I want to see another Ontario with Bob Rae in our federal government. That's my opinion.

They couldn't handle the country's largest economy, what do you think they would do to the whole country?

Ofcourse some of their policies are for the people, and I admit that. But no way do they have the right organisation to get this country on it's feet.


And welcome grimy to the forums

April 11th, 2004, 03:34 PM

A couple of things...first of all if you look at when the economic recovery began in Ontario, it was under Bob Rae.

Second of all, the Rae government was not representative of the NDP across this country then and is even less so now.

Third of all, members of the Rae government itself have said that they weren't prepared to govern. They had expected to win the election, nor had anybody else seriously expected them to win.

Fourth of all, and again. Yes the NDP are socialists. Just like governments all over the world, including Britain. The deal is that you look after your whole society. It makes the entire country better and you richer, monetarily and socially, in the long run. It also means that poor people can affrod to get sick.

Fifth of all. No the government has not been looking after our rights, Charter or not. Who passed bill C-36? The Liberals. What was the Alliance's criticism of it? That it didn't strip away enough rights. Who was first to stand up against it? The NDP.

Who wants to make Canadians carry an internal passport? Denis Coderre of the Liberals. What has been the Alliance/Conservative's biggest criticism of the idea? That it likely wouldn't be used to track people with a criminal record and that we would likely not engage in racial profiling even with the card in use. Again, it is the NDP who are standing up against it.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that every NDP government is a good government. Shortly after I moved to Manitoba I voted against Pawley and his pals because they were doing a bad job. The next provincial election I will likely vote against my MLA because, although the Doer government is doing a good job, Daryl Reid is an idiot and has not done a good job representing me.

I will sit here and tell you that there is precious little difference between Martin and Harper. They both represent the interests of big business, they both want to further Americanise Canada. If Harper was PM right now, our soldiers would be dying in Iraq. If Martin was PM when the US started banging the war drum, he likely would have caved in to threats about economic repercussions and scrambled to be onside even if we couldn't send troops.

I will also tell you that I have lived under NDP governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and that they have been at least as fiscally responsible as their conservative counterparts and have done no worse in bringing economic growth.

Go to the NDP web page and look up the policies. Compare those policies to the ones being put forth by Martin and Harper. Vote accordingly.

April 11th, 2004, 06:20 PM

the PC of ontario killed healthcare, schools, public services, city funding and everything else along with it.

they reversed what the ndp did, but i suppose it just had to be done. i dont want to see ndp around here anymore, and i dont want to see PC either.

April 11th, 2004, 07:57 PM

And another couple of things.

I think you will find that Ronald Reagan was President at the time. An unprecidented second term no less. Then, as now, Ontario and Canada are the recepients of successful economic conditions brought about by Repuplican Presidents.

It was the biggest and best opportunity for the ndp to show and tell all, and they failed miserably. Ontario, the most populace and influential province was the holy grail and the ndp displayed for all they certainly didn't and still don't have, the right stuff.

I'm not sure what your point is here. They finally had their cake and didn't know how to eat it?

Most people know the ndp are socialists, but to say the current British government is socialist is like saying black is white. They are socialist in name (Labour) only, and that party will not be going back to it's old ways any time soon. I really don't understand what you're trying to say with the rest of that quote. Will you explain?

You seem to pick and choose isolated bits and pieces all parties (except the ndp who have not and will not get the opportunity) to hurl against those parties that have won the people's trust. So what if the ndp voted against it, does that mean we should entrust socialists to power? Every party that's been elected has made mistakes and hopefully learned something from other that our beloved current ruling Liberals who it would appear would sell their collective souls for a single vote. It must be somewhat frustrating to continue to hurl stones at glass houses knowing your party will never live in one.

Something smells here and it's not a whiff of Gagliano my friend. You are condemming your entire party because your local didn't or doesn't represent you to you liking, am I right? If I am, I think you don't have much faith in your party at all, yet you do indeed sit here and try to convince the undecided to vote ndp.

So have many of us, and most if not all have been disasters of the first order. Done no worse? Of course they have due to their crazy attitude of taxation which is still the taxpayer no matter who it's aimed at, and spend, spend, spend.

I don't think so. Everyone knows the ndp have subliminal messages in their web page. Stare at them long enough and all you want to do is go out, rob an elderly citizen and quickly spend your ill gotten gains. (that's a joke)


[/quote]

April 11th, 2004, 09:07 PM

My thoughts on NAFTA have undergone a wholesale change and I regret my original analysis. I know and see the results first hand.

The Global Cheap-Labour Economy

Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

excerpt from: The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order

The globalization of poverty endorses the development of a worldwide cheap-labour export economy. Poor countries do not trade among themselves: poor people do not constitute a market for the goods they produce.

Consumer demand is limited to approximately 15 percent of the world population, confined largely to the rich countries. Poverty is "an input" into the cheap-labour economy (on the supply side).

Everybody wants to export to the same European and North American markets: oversupply obliges Third World producers to cut their prices; the factory prices of industrial goods tumble on world markets in much the same way as those of primary commodities. Competition between and with developing countries contributes to depressing wages and prices.

Ironically, the promotion of exports leads ultimately to lower commodity prices and less export revenue from which to repay the external debt. In a bitter irony, the most successful exporting economies are also the World's largest debtor nations.

Moreover, the economic stabilization measures imposed on the South and East backfire on the economies of the rich countries: poverty in the Third World contributes to a global contraction in import demand which in turn affects economic growth and employment in the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries.

For every job lost in the developed countries and transferred to the Third World, there is a corresponding decline of consumption in the developed countries.

Part-time employment, early retirement, the practice of attrition (which shifts the social burden of unemployment onto the younger age groups) bars an entire generation from the job-market.

This system is characterized by an unlimited capacity to produce. Yet the very act of expanding production - through relocation of material production from the "high wage" to the "low wage" economies - contributes to a contraction of spending (by those who have been laid off) which leads the world economy ultimately to the path of global stagnation.

While NAFTA enables American and Canadian corporations to penetrate the Mexican market, this process is undertaken largely by displacing existing Mexican enterprises. The US "exports its recession" to Mexico. Poverty and low wages in Mexico do not favour the expansion of consumer demand.

The formation of NAFTA has contributed to exacerbating the economic recession: the tendency is towards the reduction of wages and employment in all three countries.


AND Jeffrey Rubin, CIBC...

Wal-Mart's impact far-reaching

Wal-Mart is probably the best thing that has ever happened to North American consumers, provided of course, that they don't work at Wal-Mart, its suppliers, or even its competitors. If they do, they will quickly discover that it is the giant U.S. retailer's wages and benefits, or the lack thereof, that make Wal-Mart's pricing so irresistible to shoppers.

Every year, Wal-Mart mandates a 5-per-cent drop in its suppliers' prices for standardized products -- a reduction that it passes on to its consumers. Cost compliance inevitably pushes suppliers offshore in pursuit of low wages. The more that Wal-Mart suppliers outsource offshore, the less domestic employment and production shoppers at Wal-Mart generate.

All of a sudden Wal-Mart's competitors can no longer compete with their current labour costs, and have sought significant rollbacks in both wages and benefits. The point here is not to vilify Wal-Mart, but to understand the forces that shape it. In the final analysis, Wal-Mart isn't about union busting or offshoring. It's ultimately about consumer sovereignty in the marketplace, even if, as some claim, middle-class American consumers are shopping themselves right out of their jobs. But if Wal-Mart's success is the prototype of the new economy, who will its future customers be?

IN THE END
This is all irrelevent. The world is running out of oil decades earlier that originally forecast. We are facing "the sharpest and perhaps the most violent dislocation (of society) in recent history."

...in the history of planet earth

...nothing else matters.

April 11th, 2004, 09:11 PM

I guess we're going top play the quote game, are we?

There was nothing unprecedented about Reagan's second term. You will also find, if you actually look at the truth, that Ontario's recovery didn't start a true recovery until after Reagan left office.


Actually Canada (and Ontario) did better under Clinton than under Reagan or either Bush. We also did better under Carter, although everybody was doing so badly then that it is hard to tell. All American presidents have done in living memory is build up debt. Check the numbers.



Hmmm....so did the Conservatives and so are the Liberals. Why are you trying to pin how ****ed up Ontario is on a party that was only in power for one term?

The point is that they weren't prepared to govern. Even with that, they did as good a job as their predecessors and, if you consider that a government's job is to look after the people and not poison the water, a far better job than the Harris government.

I'm not surprised you don't understand. I will phrase it as simply as possible, put it in terms your mother should have used. There is more to life than money. If all you care about is money, you will fail.

Just correcting your misconception that your rights are autimatically protected. Your rights are being eroded by those that you seem to support. You can check the papers or, if you don't trust the press, Hansard. You will find that the NDP have stood up for the rights of individual Canadians while the Liverals and Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have actively worked to curtail those rights.

Apparently the Conservatives haven't learned anything either. Instead of trying to fix a health care system that worked very well until it was underfunded they want to privatise health care even though that has been shown in study after study to be less effeicient and more expensive. They would have taken us to war in Iraq even though the majority of Canadians opposed the war at the start and even more oppose it now. They thought it was great that Maher Arar was sent to Syria to be tortured and only changed their tune when it turned out that he'd done nothing wrong and didn't deserve to be tortured after all.

Oh, sorry...none of those things have to do with funding major corporations while boning the Canadian people, do they? The Conservatives also support NAFTA and would sell even more of our resources, especially energy, to the US. They would back out of Kyoto. They would tie our military to the US. Stephen Harper used to belong to a "think tank" that promoted the moronic idea of adopting the US dollar.

Now you might support, even promote, Canada becoming the 51st state, Grimy. You might stand in front of the mirror practising your Texas drawl. You might have wet dreams about rimming George Bush. Most Canadians don't though...at least not real Canadians.

April 12th, 2004, 09:17 AM

Are you one of those people who finds it impossible to tolerate an opposing view? Is that what's with the attitude and the snide, cutting remarks.

Try to keep a civil tongue in your head please.

April 12th, 2004, 01:37 PM

No, Grimy...I'm going to be one of those people who backs up my arguments with fact. It's part of what I do as a writer.

If the language seems a little strong sometimes...well, I've been listening to the far right regurgitate the same lies for over twenty years while Canadian's standard of living dropped and our ability to control our economy, our country and our sovereignty was traded for corporate board seats on Wall street. I'm a little tired of it, so I speak bluntly.

April 13th, 2004, 04:14 AM

I think this is the point where one says:

"Let's agree to disagree".