Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Yes to Democracy, No to Free Trade

By Deborah James, AlterNet. Posted May 31, 2005.


If the U.S. wants to be received as a partner in the Americas, we could start by developing a trade policy that benefits not just U.S. corporate interests, but the vast majority of poor workers and farmers in Latin America.
Advertisement

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently toured Latin America to promote the "twin pillars of democracy and free trade." Latin Americans, on the other hand, have recently demonstrated that their commitment to democracy is not synonymous with a belief in the so-called benefits of globalization. After two decades of "free trade" economic policies that have failed to eradicate poverty in Latin America, citizens are instead electing governments that advocate for the needs of the majority for health care, education, good jobs, and social security.

During the 1960's and 70's, Latin Americans experienced an average 80% gain in income per person. Not so with the following two decades, when per capita income grew by only 11%. For the last 25 years, Latin American governments employed economic policies mandated by the Washington-dominated International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. After 25 years of privatization of essential public services, de-regulation of industry, and opening up borders to foreign investors, the majority of Latin Americans have less economic opportunity than their parents.

The cure offered by the U.S. to this economic malaise seems to be more of the same. May 28 marked the one-year anniversary of the signing of CAFTA, the Central America-Dominican Republic-United States Free Trade Agreement. Supporters hoped that the deal would have been approved by Congress long ago. But Republicans aren't likely to send legislation to the Congressional floor that they aren't sure they'll win. So far, most estimates give CAFTA opposition -- which now includes many Republicans -- a significant lead. Even pro-free trade Democrats have come out to oppose the deal, and this week the Hispanic Caucus voted 14-1 against it. That means that CAFTA will likely be a huge political defeat for the Republicans.

The Bush Administration has pulled out all the stops in attempting to convince the U.S. public that Central Americans want CAFTA, sending Central American Ambassadors, then Trade Ministers, and recently even their Presidents across the U.S. on pro-CAFTA tours. But anyone with an ear to the ground in Central America knows the opposite; these deals are fiercely opposed by Central American farmers, workers, women, environmentalists, people of faith, youth, and more -- pretty much every group except for the elite business sector.

Even the existence of CAFTA is a manifestation of the diminishing popularity of so-called "free trade" and the erosion of U.S. influence in the area. For the last ten years, the U.S. had negotiated a Free Trade Area of the Americas with 34 countries in the region. But negotiations faltered as many South American nations, including Brazil, Venezuela, and Argentina, resisted the U.S. demands that they hand over their public services, investment, and other key sectors while the U.S. maintains unfair agricultural subsidies that block market access for their exports. When FTAA talks broke down in 2003, the U.S. launched a "divide-and-conquer" strategy, hoping to secure agreements with the weaker countries of Central America and the Andean nations (currently under negotiation). So CAFTA is supposed to be a stepping-stone to the FTAA, but it is one that is likely to crumble under our feet.


Digg!

Deborah James is the Global Economy Director at Global Exchange, an international human rights organization.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why not come out and say it?!
Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net on May 31, 2005 1:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Free trade" is a total lie. Like the three-year-old who thinks "fair" means "I always win", "free trade" means to the corporate monster, "we make the rules".

Looking not only at the various "Free Trade Agreements" which amount to slavery for most, but the huge giveaways to corporations by our out-of-control government, the vast practice of public investment for private profit, and various tarriffs and subsidies, tells us that there is no such thing as "free trade".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why not come out and say it?! Posted by: churchofone
brasilaron
Posted by: brasilaron on May 31, 2005 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Free trade, to the US at least, apparently means "give us all your stuff for free and then maybe we'll steal the rest of it under laws that we write without the democratic input of the constituents of plutocratic leaders of economically weak and smaller countries." I don't know where the trade part fits in.
I do know that in Bolivia, most people are extremely hostile to ALCA (FTAA in espanol) because they have first-hand experience with US stipulations for aid and trade. Our insane drive to erradicate coca without providing any alternative has helped people see that the US is nt interested in "helping" them or "alleviating" their poverty. We just want to build military bases there and kill indigenous people. They have also seen how we backed Goni (their ex-prez) who slaughtered about 80 people democratically protesting his sell-out of their natural resources in the name of democracy. They also saw how the US backed plan Condor which made many people "disappear", a euphemism for assassinated. They then saw how the US backed the dictator responsible for those murders, Hugo Banzer Suarez, in his drive to become president, whcih he eventually became despite NOT winning a majority or even a plurality of votes. (sound familiar?) Throughout Latin America people see how the US is trying to intimidate Hugo Chavez (say what you will about his STYLE) who has been democratically elected TWICE over US obstructionism and an attempted coup. People in LA also see how the US funded war in Colombia is destroying people's lives and supporting the corrupt plutocrats who are intimately related to the trafficking of cocaine and heroine. People have seen how the US supported the dictatorships in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala. We have helped assassinate democratically elected presidents, democracy activists and common indigenous peasants.
Is it any wonder then why they don't want a damned thing to do with our "free trade"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: brasilaron Posted by: Johanna Moren
Good for the People of South & Central America
Posted by: Pepper on May 31, 2005 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love that Argentina, Venezuela and Ecuador gave the IMF the big finger. LOL It was about time. I watched daily as Argentina went through that horrible crash because they listened to the IMF and it destroyed their rising economy, devestated their middle class and ruined their social fabric of their country.

Somehow they got the courage to tell them all to go to heck and are now doing much better. It doesn't hurt that one of their best trading partners for their natural resources is the fire hot economy of China. You go boys. While the Bush cabal is in charge, I would not sign anything with these psychopathic liars and cheats. Frankly, I think the Bush's and all their minions are a bunch of lizards.

Treaties should be signed and ratiified by the people of each country since you can't count on the bought and paid for representatives of this country or any other.

I also salute the "democratically" elected President of Venezuela. Now there is a rare individual who actually cares about his people. What a unique concept. We only have two here in our country that we can say that about and that is Ron Paul and T Tancredo. P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what NAFTA really stands for
Posted by: twoten on May 31, 2005 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in Canada we know that NAFTA really means: Nearly Always Favors The Americans. The US softwood embargo has been ruled illegal so many times yet it is still in place, the USDA cries about our one mad cow while refusing to test 1,000 US downer cows, we can't stop a carcinogenic additive being put into our fuel and we can't stop feeding our oil to the great greedy southern pig. When are you dickless americans going to find the balls to do something about your evil administration?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America First
Posted by: jakealeah on May 31, 2005 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simply stated, it is not immoral for Americans to care about Americans first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: America First Posted by: nakis
» RE: America First Posted by: englehart
» RE: America First Posted by: jakealeah
» RE: America First Posted by: Halaby
» RE: America First Posted by: hagwind
eyes to see
Posted by: montana freeman on May 31, 2005 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
know that there is awaking taking place in regard to this pig infested government

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A good idea
Posted by: chuckrightmire on May 31, 2005 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it guys, "free trade" is a good idea. It was a good idea for the 13 colonies who adopted the Constitution to make it work. Under the Articles of Confederation each state had the right to set tariffs and otherwise interfere with trade which is what our revolution was all about. It resulted in dislocations of industry and trade even in a world in which business was not dominant.

But what we have with NAFTA, CAFTA (both definitions) and others is one that allows us to dominate the field. That's not free trade and should not be allowed. Instead of demanding privatization of things like health care and what, in this country, are considered public utilities, we should demand that the elite business forces of each country distribute the benefits to those beneath them. We should demand environmental protections equal to what we have. And we should stay out of the political workings of other countries, particularly of those with freely elected governments, even if they appear to be "leftist." Let's demand government of the people, by the people, for the people. Might be a good idea to have it in this country as well.

If we don't have that, then "free trade" is just another term for "economic imperialism" which is what you are describing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A good idea Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
Suffer not only for the poor and oppressed in Latin America
Posted by: paschn@comcast.net on May 31, 2005 3:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the traitor Reagan in the '80's, I've seen worker's rights and wages ravaged in this country too. In 1980 as a union finisher I made roughly 30k a year. I make less than half that now and labor laws that used to protect me have been mutated or done away with completely. If you really want to see justice, international as well as national, you MUST put in place CONCRETE laws to return rights to PEOPLE not corporations. Our leaders have ALWAYS to a lesser degree fell to their knees before the wealthy and powerful for their high protein sustenance. but with the Bush regime it's become an even BIGGER orgy. After he and his have been made to answer for their war crimes, this MUST be changed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peace
Posted by: Peace on May 31, 2005 8:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only when we work towards diminishing the gap between rich and poor will we reduce the amount of violence in the world.
Free trade agreements are only good for the dominant country.
The poor countries must work to maintain control of their own countries, and become more self sufficient. Giving control of their economies and environment to more powerful countries is a disaster.

As Gandhi said 'there is enough for everyones needs but not enough for everyones greed"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes to "Free Trade"
Posted by: mebadgett on Jun 1, 2005 3:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ten Ways to Democratize the Global Economy will give you plenty of ideas and concrete ways to get involved in the struggle to make our economy more democratic:

http://gabrieljeffrey.com/link/1713

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Immoral
Posted by: jakealeah on Jun 2, 2005 4:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not immoral to want what is best for our country before we have to take care of other countries.

Let me see, if I have it right you would rather provide your job to someone else resulting in your not having a job? See you in the unemployment line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Immoral Posted by: dotfret