The Progressive Response

The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)—a "Think Tank Without Walls." A joint project the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF is an international network of analysts and activists dedicated to “making the U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner.” We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in PR and may print them in the "Letters and Comments" section. For more information on FPIF and joining our network, please consider visiting FPIF’s website: http://www.fpif.org/.

Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)

Table of Contents

I. Updates and Out-Takes

FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
By Karen Hansen-Kuhn

FTAA & WOMEN
By Marceline White

UN VETO REVEALS BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S CONTEMPT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
By Stephen Zunes

II. Outside the U.S.

AN NGO APPEAL FOR PEACE IN MACEDONIA

III. Letters and Comments

EMBARASSING AMERICAN ARROGANCE

CANADA'S COMPLICITY

I. Updates and Out-Takes

SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

(Editor's Note: The prospects for formalized hemispheric economic integration do not look good as the third Summit of the Americas approaches: Canada and the U.S. have a trade dispute brewing as do Canada and Brazil. And some Latin American countries, led by Brazil, have expressed their unwillingness to meet the U.S. schedule of completing an FTAA agreement by 2003. When Bush travels to Quebec City, he will come without the fast-track authority he would need to accelerate new trade deals. President Bush has repeatedly asserted his commitment to free trade but he seems clueless about how to build a political majority to support further economic integration. With an economic downturn taking hold in the U.S. and concerns mounting that international business dealings be connected to social and environmental norms, the future of regional and international free trade regimes doesn't look promising. In this issue we offer two analyses of FTAA, excerpted from a new FPIF policy brief and global affairs commentary. See Free Trade Area of the Americas at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n12ftaa.html and FTAA and Women at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0103femftaa.html.)

FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
By Karen Hansen-Kuhn

As leaders of 34 Western Hemisphere countries gather in Quebec City, Canada in April 2001, President George W. Bush hopes that the third Summit of the Americas will mark a step toward fulfilling his father's dream of a creating a free trade area stretching from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. For a variety of reasons, this goal seems increasingly out of reach.

When, at the first Summit of the Americas in Miami in December 1994, President Bill Clinton proposed establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) linking all of the hemisphere's economies (except Cuba's) by the year 2005, he held out Mexico as the model of economic reform and NAFTA as the model trade agreement. Just ten days later, however, the Mexican peso experienced a massive devaluation. Stunned observers watched as billions of foreign investment dollars flowed out of the country. That, coupled with the austerity and adjustment conditions attached to the bailout package financed by the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)--particularly the requirement that interest rates be maintained at very high levels--led to further devaluation and sent the Mexican economy into a deep depression.

The economic crises and public discontent have dampened congressional enthusiasm for free trade agreements, as demonstrated by the defeat of the Clinton administration's request for fast-track authority in 1998. Since then, further efforts to introduce fast track--or, as Bush's Trade Representative Robert Zoellick calls it, "trade promotion authority"--have stalemated, with a bloc of congressional Democrats insisting that any agreement must include labor and environmental standards and Republicans vowing to block any accord that includes a linkage.

Recently, the Business Round Table has indicated its willingness to support the inclusion of labor and environmental issues in trade agreements. This is happening in large part because of corporate concerns that other trading partners, particularly the European Union, are gaining ground in trade talks in this hemisphere. In a February 2001 report, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) said: "FTAA negotiations should be accelerated and completed by the end of 2003. Speed is important because of the EU's ongoing negotiations with major South American countries." Although the NAM does not favor enforceable labor and environmental standards, it seems likely that the business community will push for some language on those issues in order to gain sufficient Democratic votes to grant the president fast-track authority and accelerate trade talks.

Many of the region's governments believe that an FTAA would serve to ensure sustained access to U.S. markets by reducing tariffs and preventing trade disputes. The FTAA, like NAFTA, would also provide member countries a seal of approval and thereby, they hope, help to stimulate foreign investment. Brazil, in particular, continues to express ambivalence about the FTAA, suggesting that it would be better to promote Latin American integration first and then consider negotiations with the behemoth of the North.

As with NAFTA, the USTR proposals for the FTAA would result in greater rights for investors, without establishing any corresponding responsibilities. The USTR's position is that investors should have the right to move funds into and out of countries without delay--meaning that provisions such as capital controls or performance requirements to ensure that investments serves to promote development goals would be illegal under an FTAA.

NAFTA includes weak side-agreements on labor and the environment, in which the three countries commit not to break their own laws on those issues, but not even these meager measures are being considered under the FTAA. Washington suggested even weaker language, calling for countries to strive to ensure that labor or environmental standards are not lowered in order to attract investment. Most Latin American governments, however, have rejected even those ideas as inappropriate in trade talks, fearing that any efforts to raise such standards would lead to disguised protectionism. Instead, they have relegated discussion of those issues to unenforceable summit declarations and action plans.

In an outline of its objectives leaked last year, the FTAA services negotiating group stated its goal to liberalize all services in all sectors--i.e., commercial services such as tourism, data processing, and financial transactions, as well as public services at all levels of government. The USTR supports further liberalization of trade in services, promoting a top-down approach in which all services not specifically excluded would be included in the trade deal. This approach could lead to the privatization of such public services as health and education--particularly if a government has opened the door to commercialization of the services by allowing some aspects to be subcontracted to private service providers. The USTR proposal calls for the inclusion of energy services, something excluded from NAFTA, and it fails to address the possible environmental consequences of such a move.

According to Alternatives for the Americas: Building a Peoples' Hemispheric Agreement, which was prepared by activists and scholars from the hemisphere, labor, environmental, and other relevant social issues must be included in the negotiation process. The resulting agreements should affirm such internationally recognized accords as the International Labor Organization Conventions, the United Nations Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, any consensus reached on these issues must be included within the text of the FTAA agreement, not in unenforceable side agreements.

Language regulating investments should also be changed to balance investors' needs for clear rules with the development objectives of national economies. Governments should retain the right to impose performance requirements on foreign investors and should be allowed to protect small- and medium-scale producers and other key economic sectors in order to promote national development priorities. Each country's right to maintain food and nutritional security (for example, by excluding basic grains from trade-liberalization measures) should also be guaranteed. Likewise, governments must be free to regulate without having to compensate foreign investors for "economic harms." Until such time as the substantive rules reflect greater balance between granting broad new rights to corporations and imposing concomitant responsibilities, the investor-state mechanism has no place in the FTAA.

FTAA & WOMEN
By Marceline White

For women, new trade agreements such as the FTAA present particular challenges. According to the United Nations, women constitute more than 70% of the world's poorest citizens. Women are disproportionately poor due to social and cultural discrimination, which limits their access to education, technological training, credit, and land. In addition, women are not hired for many jobs for which they qualify; they are considered "secondary" wage earners and are usually the last workers hired and the first fired. Finally, women still do the bulk of "reproductive" work--caring for their families, preparing meals, and keeping the household clean and functioning. This invisible work means that women have less time to gain new job skills, to seek new jobs, or to simply relax and pursue leisure activities.

Although women have a large stake in the outcome of trade talks, trade negotiators ignore women's specific needs and concerns when devising new agreements. To date, no trade negotiators have studied how new trade rules might affect women differently. Consequently, the FTAA agreement is likely both to widen the gender gap between men and women and to increase poverty for many women in the Americas. These concerns are even more pressing if the U.S. succeeds in its efforts to move the timetable for the negotiations forward--from the established date of 2005 to 2003. This "fast-tracked" timeline would impede countries' abilities to thoroughly analyze the implications of any sectoral commitments.

If the U.S. proposals are indicative, women's equity will be lauded in the Summit of the Americas declaration, while being undermined at the negotiating table. Below are some of the gender-specific concerns raised by the summaries of the U.S. negotiating proposals for the FTAA:

* Farmers

The agriculture proposal ignores the issue of food security, a key concern for women living in poverty in the region. It also ignores recommendations to allow countries to provide special protections for small farmers (30 to 40 million Latin American women are responsible for household farming activities). Female seasonal laborers are likely to be much poorer than others and to compete against one another for jobs, thereby driving down wages. In addition, casual and seasonal work forces poor women laborers to spend more time seeking employment.

Agriculture agreements under the FTAA may increase food insecurity in Latin America and the Caribbean. Currently, there are more food subsidies and supports for developed countries than for developing ones. The FTAA is likely to increase dependence on food imports and decrease countries' self-sufficiency, unless U.S. negotiators agree to include a "food security box" to ensure that countries have the capacity to protect rural communities and the resources to provide basic foods to the poor.

* Producers and Consumers of Services

The U.S. proposal's failure to call for a provision ensuring basic health, education, water, energy, and other social services opens the door for privatization programs that are likely to result in layoffs and cuts in services that will disproportionately affect women.

The public service sector has historically been associated with more highly skilled and waged jobs for women. Privatization of social services has already been mandated for many indebted countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Those privatization plans have disproportionately affected women. Between 1990 and 1995, after Nicaragua agreed to an IMF privatization plan, over 250,000 public sector workers lost their jobs, particularly in the health and education fields. More than 70% of those laid off were women. New privatized jobs in the health care and education sector in Nicaragua tend to command lower wages and increasingly casual, temporary, or contractual labor with few benefits.

Water may also be privatized as part of the FTAA, with serious health implications for women and children. Worldwide, women and girls spend an estimated 40 billion hours every year hauling water from distant and frequently polluted sources. If privatization raises the cost of water, women may either ration clean water or substitute unclean water. Recent IMF-led water privatization in Cochabamba, Bolivia, led a mother of five to choose between food and water when her water bill rose from $5 to $20 a month. That $15 increase had previously been the means to feed her family for a week and a half.

Marceline White <mwhite@womensedge.org> is the director of the Global Trade Program at Women's EDGE.

Sources for More Information on FTAA:

Organizations

Alliance for Responsible Trade
Email: karen@art-us.org
Web: http://www.art-us.org/

Center for International Environmental Law
Email: sporter@ciel.org
Web: http://www.ciel.org/

Common Frontiers
Email: comfront@web.ca
Web: http://www.web.net/comfront/

Institute for Policy Studies
Email: saraha@igc.org
Web: http://www.ips-dc.org/

Red Chile por un Comercio Justo y Responsable
Email: alianzacj@ctcinternet.cl
Web: http://www.comerciojusto.terra.cl/

Red Mexicana de Acción frente al Libre Comercio
Email: rmalc@laneta.apc.org
Web: http://www.rmalc.org.mx/

World Wide Web

Hemispheric Social Alliance
http://www.asc-hsa.org/

Official FTAA site
http://www.ftaa-alca.org/

Summit of the Peoples of the Americas
http://www.peoplessummit.org/

United States Trade Representative
http://www.ustr.gov/

UN VETO REVEALS BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S CONTEMPT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
By Stephen Zunes

(Excerpted from an FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, posted at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0104veto.html.)

The U.S. veto of a UN Security Council resolution calling for the deployment of unarmed monitors to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip demonstrates the new administration's contempt for human rights. The United States was the only country to vote against the resolution, which came before the Security Council on March 28 after five days of tortuous negotiations that moderated the wording of the original draft. Still, this was not enough for the U.S., which cast its first veto of a UN Security Council resolution in five years.

The call for international monitors has grown over the past six months as reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli group B'tselem have documented a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations by Israeli occupation forces against the Palestinian population. These have included detention without charge, torture, extrajudicial killings, rocket and mortar attacks against civilian targets, demolition of Palestinian homes, restrictions of movement, and numerous acts of collective punishment.

Bush administration officials claim that monitors should not be deployed without Israel's consent. However, the monitors would not be going to Israel. Instead they would be assigned to Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory and areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, so no Israeli consent is required. The recently vetoed UN resolution did not call for a peacekeeping force but rather for a team of monitors to observe and report on human rights abuses.

It's particularly disappointing to human rights activists that most congressional Democrats have declined to criticize the Republican administration's action at the UN. Even members of the Human Rights Caucus in the House of Representatives have not questioned the veto. With no pressure coming from Capitol Hill, the Bush administration will have little incentive to change its anti-human rights stance in the Middle East and elsewhere.

It will be very difficult for the United States to speak out against human rights abuses in Iraq, Iran, China, or any other country as long as it protects its allies from international criticism or scrutiny. Global leadership requires that principles sometimes must be placed above ideology. Otherwise, the United States will find itself with fewer friends and a growing number of enemies in an increasingly violent world.

Stephen Zunes <zunes@usfca.edu> is Middle East and North Africa editor for Foreign Policy In Focus and an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.

II. Outside the U.S.

(Editor's Note: This section of the Progressive Response includes non-U.S. perspectives on the impact and directions of U.S. foreign policy. Articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the editor or Foreign Policy In Focus. Article submissions of 1,000 words should be sent to: <john@irc-online.org>.)

AN NGO APPEAL FOR PEACE IN MACEDONIA

For the sake of protection of the fundamental principles in a civil society and its future development in the democratic process, we express our concerns and condemn the recent aggression that has seriously jeopardized the security of the country. We strongly condemn all acts of violence and the call for interethnic intolerance. The occurrence of forced mobilization, the manipulation of civilians, particularly that of the young, and the creation of a human wall to further military goals are unfathomable actions of civilized man.

The outcome of such actions will only serve to break away at the foundation of a civil society that the Republic of Macedonia has been building on for the past ten years. The lack of information in the media, its disinformation, and its use of a propaganda war create panic and fear, which in turn causes blame to be laid on entire ethnic communities. All citizens of the Republic of Macedonia are suffering due to the current situation, particularly the poor and those of the small minority groups. The everyday activities of the nongovernmental organizations have begun to deteriorate. Important projects between domestic and foreign partners have been cancelled. The vision for a peaceful and stable democratic civil society has entered a critical phase.

We strongly condemn all actions that lead to the escalation of the current situation and appeal for:

• the condemnation of the use of terrorism as a means to solve political problems;
• discouragement for the call of violence and ethnic intolerance;
• means to prevent both volunteer and forced mobilization of citizens called for by political parties, organizations, and ethnic groups; and
• the refrain of organizing public gatherings and protests whose aims are to make accusations of any ethnic group.

Originally signed by the Open Society Institute, Macedonia and 15 other NGOs. Signatories now include over 290 organizations and individuals.

For more information see:

http://www.mango.org.mk/en_news_detail.asp?id=10 and

FPIF's Outside the U.S. page: http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html

See "New Balkan Policy Needed," a new FPIF policy brief by Robert Greenberg. Greenberg says:

"Responding adequately to the demands of the competing nationalisms in the Balkans is no easy task. For starters, the U.S. together with NATO and the European Union should articulate a firm and consistent policy regarding the upsurge of extremism and nationalism in the Balkans. At such a critical time, it would be wise for Washington to maintain open communication lines with all parties in the Balkans-the Croats, the Muslims, the Serbs, the Albanians, and the Macedonians.

"Clearly, however, the good guy/bad guy policy framework only compounds the regional crisis. During the Milosevic regime, the Serbs were viewed as the bad guys. Now that they have unseated Milosevic, they have become good guys. The U.S. came to the aid of the Kosovar Albanians in 1999 but have since condemned the Albanian extremists, who have spread the conflict to the Presevo Valley and Macedonia, perhaps with the hope of creating a Greater Kosovo."

Posted at: http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n11balkan.html

III. Letters and Comments

EMBARASSING AMERICAN ARROGANCE

As I read these two articles on climate change [Climate Change: Europe at the Crossroads by Tom Athanasiou, U.S. Scuttles Latest Chance to Avert Global Warming Catastrophe By Ross Gelbspan] it struck me that the arrogance displayed by America and its politicians is quite embarrassing. The world is faced with two choices: change to environmentally sound policies, or a possible apocalypse. I would prefer the first, however my politicians, those being American, beg to differ. As stated by Gelbspan's article, our economy would not suffer from clean energy, but would benefit! Such industries as solar power, wind power, etc., would boom. Obviously, our present president has his hands deep in the fossil fuel industry, but that should not stop him; this issue is past politics, past countries, it is a global issue, and we are ruining it! So obviously economically we have reasons to do this, but what about politically? The world as a whole wants this thing, Europe is clamoring for it, Japan held the whole conference, etc. What will be the ramifications? Whatever they may be, they will not be good: increased individuality by Europe and Japan, and initiative displayed by both without American help or even approval. Is this really worth an industry that for all we know may wreak global havoc? I think not. To split ourselves from our most important allies, and to show such arrogance, is ridiculous. For once, I hope the world ignores America, I hope...

- John Matthews <John_matthews_16@angelfire.com>

CANADA'S COMPLICITY

Excellent analysis in Climate Change: Europe at the Crossroads by Tom Athanasiou. I'm ashamed of Canada's complicity in stalling action. Regardless of Blair's attempts to straddle the vast policy gulf across the Atlantic, I think Europe is going to be very reticent to accommodate the U.S.'s extremist positions, on this and many other issues. Let's hope, for the sake of our children, Europe has the guts to stand against these venal interests. I wrote an article "A Hot Topic," which appeared in the Winter 1999 issue of Nature Canada. It looked at the effects of climate change on the North, and politics here, including attempts by Canadian-based, industry-funded disinformation campaigns by such think-tanks as the Fraser Institute (who republished Cato Intitute propaganda such as Global Warming: The Science and the Politics). Among other scientists, I interviewed IPCC author Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria's School of Earth and Ocean Sciences. Weaver recently wrote an editorial challenging Canada's politicians to do their part, now that they have completed their hard work to eliminate doubts surrounding climate change science.

- Raymond Parker <amanra@nanaimo.ark.com>

Subscribe to The Progressive Response!

To subscribe to The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:

To unsubscribe from The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:
lists-unsubscribe@irc-online.org

Simply click the appropriate hyperlink above, or send a blank email to the appropriate email address above.

The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the institutional positions of either the Interhemispheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies.

Please consider taking our online users' survey by going to: http://www.fpif.org/form_survey.html.

We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so let us know how we're doing, via email to irc@irc-online.org. Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies you may receive.

IRC
Tom Barry
Editor, Progressive Response
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: tom@irc-online.org

IPS
Martha Honey
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: ipsps@igc.apc.org

This page was last modified on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:01 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.