| Written by Maria Elena Salinas |
| Monday, November 17 2003 |
| |
| They call them "globaphobes." It's a word that describes those who are opposed to -- or, as the term suggests, those who fear -- globalization. They show up at just about every international trade meeting. Possibly the most infamous example in the United States was the one in Seattle four years ago, when opposition to free trade led to violent clashes outside World Trade Organization meetings.
This week it's Miami's turn. Thousands of protesters are converging on South Florida as trade ministers meet in ongoing negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, better known as the FTAA. But while some of these so-called globaphobes might be just professional protesters who complain about anything and everything, there are many groups with legitimate concerns that should be addressed.
The FTAA is being negotiated by 34 countries with the intention of creating a free trade zone in the Americas, with a potential market of 800 million consumers. Designed in the style of the NAFTA agreement with Mexico and Canada, the FTAA is intended to link the economies of South, Central and North America and the Caribbean.
So, what's the problem with that? This column isn't long enough to list all of the complaints against the FTAA, but here are some of them: Labor unions are adamantly opposed. They claim the treaty will mean thousands of lost jobs, lower wages and weaker labor protection for workers across the region. Environmentalists fear it will lower the standards they have worked so hard to maintain through the years. The U.S. steel, citrus and sugar industries claim competition from abroad could totally wipe them out.
South of the border, several underdeveloped countries are complaining of unfair competition from the United States and are asking the American government to cut farm subsidies and eliminate tariffs on foreign goods. Farmers in the United States say they simply cannot compete with the cheap labor and loose environmental standards in other countries in the hemisphere.
Politicians and business leaders had been singing the praises of free trade long before NAFTA was signed in 1993. But 10 years later, the jury is still out. Sure, it has increased trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico. But it has not been the intended cure for the economic ills of the region.
Poverty is still rampant in Mexico, wages are lower today than when NAFTA was approved, and poor Mexicans are still risking their lives to cross the border. U.S. farmers are struggling to stay in business, and thousands of U.S. jobs have been lost.
There are those who say the whole process of negotiating free trade agreements is undemocratic. They say the deals are hammered out by trade ministers behind closed doors, with little input from workers, environmental groups and ordinary citizens. Supporters of free trade argue that these are representatives of democratically elected governments, negotiating deals that are in the best interests of their respective countries. While that might be true, it should also be noted that a handful of the wealthier countries too often set the rules of the game.
As of now, every issue is on the table, and there are no certainties about how the treaty will pan out or even if there will be a treaty at all. All sides in the negotiation want free trade, but they also want fair trade. It's not realistic to have small Third World countries compete on equal terms with larger, more prosperous economies; however, the more-developed countries need to show some flexibility.
The FTAA will have winners and losers, but in the long run all of these countries, including the United States, will need each other to grow and compete with the rest of the world. So, while it is important to address the concerns of the globaphobes, anarchists, protesters or whatever you want to call them, it will be difficult for them to stop the international economic forces from going forward. |
