FTAA ministerial meeting, Miami, 2003

UPDATE November 21, 2003

Canada and the final Ministerial declaration

A deal has been struck at the FTAA Ministerial Conference in Miami. The speed at which it was reached would be surprising if not for the fact that Brazil and the United States had basically agreed to a text before the Ministers even set foot in Florida. An earlier draft text proposed an “FTAA-lite” that allowed countries to decide on “different levels of commitments.” This text suggested that developing countries in the hemisphere would be permitted to avoid signing-on to some of the most controversial elements (i.e. investment, services, intellectual property protection and government procurement.)

Canada and Chile came out against the draft declaration. These countries were hoping for a “comprehensive” single undertaking, not free trade a la carte. In a document entitled: “Input for the Miami Declaration”, Canada and Chile reaffirmed that the FTAA should be “concluded by January 2005, as a single undertaking…” and should “aim toward the deepest possible substantive commitments in all negotiating areas.” We can only assume that this philosophy is also applied to areas that our government has sworn to protect such as our health care, our culture, our water and our education. A dangerous contradiction appears between word and deed in the Canadian position.

Under the “Services” section of the document, Canada and Chile called on other countries to “progressively liberalize trade in services, with certainty and transparency.” Later, they declared that “liberalization shall be comprehensive and shall be in accordance with current laws and regulations. It shall be based on existing levels of international obligations or existing or improved access opportunities.”

Clearly, the question we must ask ourselves is whether the government intends to give foreign corporations “improved domestic access opportunities” to our public services. We have been demanding that our government improve protection for health care, water, education and other public services in free trade deals. It seems that the Canadian government is taking the opposite route.

Under the “Investment” section, Canada and Chile ask the member countries to “provide for a stable and predictable environment that protects the investor, his investment and related flows.” It hasn’t been a secret that our Trade Minister intended to replicate almost verbatim the abominable Chapter 11 from NAFTA, which allows corporations to sue governments for lost profits. However, there is no mention of any obligation or responsibility to the host country on the part of the foreign investor in the draft documents or in the final declaration.

Canada’s position in Miami reads like a propaganda leaflet for neoliberal free trade. What is more revealing perhaps than the final declaration are the paragraphs from earlier drafts that were later dropped. The November 18th draft had this remarkable statement: “commitments assumed by the countries of the FTAA must be consistent with the principles of the sovereignty of States and the respective constitutional texts and must not limit States’ capacity to formulate public policy in keeping with national interests and the well-being of their people.”

The fact that such a clause was controversial and was later rejected says a lot about the power that corporations have and are still acquiring through free trade deals. What is sadder from a Canadian perspective is that our negotiators were among those who insisted it be dropped.

The November 19th draft likewise had some meek but interesting language regarding a “consultative group” whose purpose would be to “address labor and the environment in the FTAA.” The final declaration makes no mention of labor issues, environmental issues or cultural issues.

The final declaration of the FTAA Ministerial in Miami is no cause for us to rejoice. The 2005 deadline is unlikely to be respected but this doesn’t mean that we should be lulled to sleep. The structure has been modified but the purpose remains the same: to impose corporate trade on our hemisphere. The original “vision” of a “comprehensive” deal might yet be realized. We must make sure it isn’t.

SECTIONS