As 2003 winds down, the Bush administration is bolstering its latest campaign to sustain life-support measures for a program that, in principle, would eliminate trade and investment barriers between 34 countries (except Cuba), in the Western Hemisphere, opening up a $13 trillion market of 800 million people.
The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is a noble concept. In essence, the FTAA is guided by four fundamental principles: preservation and strengthening of the democratic community of the Americas; promotion of well-being through economic integration and free trade; eradication of poverty and discrimination in the hemisphere; and a guarantee of sustainable development and preservation of the environment for future generations.
The problem I have is trying to figure out whether FTAA would deliver the U.S. a brighter economic future or propagate further movement by industry towards offshore manufacturing and job outsourcing, while exploiting labor in the neediest nations.
One thing the embattled masses agree on is that FTAA's predecessor, NAFTA, can be used as a benchmark in determining whether FTAA would be beneficial or detrimental to the U.S. economy. As opponents like to allege, "FTAA is NAFTA on steroids."
So the question becomes: "Has NAFTA been a success?" If it has, then FTAA promises to broaden that affect. However, if NAFTA is considered a failure, then FTAA will just be a farther-reaching failure. The answer to this debate depends on how you earn your money.
The Web site for the Office of the United States Trade Representative states, "NAFTA has been a huge success for the U.S. and its NAFTA partners. It has helped Americans work smarter, earn more and increase purchasing power. It has contributed to more trade, higher productivity, better jobs, and higher wages."
But labor leaders in the U.S. say that FTAA would lead a "race to the bottom" by sending U.S. investment and jobs to poor countries with low wages and exploited workers.
"Now, nearly 10 years after NAFTA took effect, few of the promised gains for workers have materialized," charges the AFL-CIO. "Instead, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico is almost 10 times bigger than it was before NAFTA, American workers have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and real wages in Mexico have fallen, while poverty is up."
On Nov. 17 – 19, about 2,000 business leaders from the 34 countries converged at the Hyatt Regency Miami in an attempt to iron-out their widening differences involving the free-trade pact. And it's the business leaders' agenda that concerns the AFL-CIO.
"The FTAA as currently written would destroy jobs, encourage privatization, increase corporate control and worsen inequality throughout the hemisphere. The FTAA will not benefit workers...it will benefit the large companies that want to ship more work out of the United States and further undermine the ability of governments in the hemisphere to regulate in the public interest."
I have a tendency to agree. It certainly appears that FTAA would be good for U.S.-based big business, who could reap the financial benefits of setting up manufacturing plants in the Americas region (outside the U.S.) and employing cheap labor. Although this concept is nothing new, FTAA would make the shift easier and more profitable.
I'm not anti-business, but it's time for the Bush administration to recognize the fact that workers are the heart and soul of this nation. By cutting their numbers, Corporate America and our economy will surely falter.
FTAA has created an emotionally charged stage. I'd like to hear your opinion. Email me at: jobrien@paperage.com
