Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, March 8, 1993 TAG: 9303080753
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RICHARD LOWENTHAL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
THERE MAY BE MORE TO FEAR THAN GAIN FROM `FREE TRADE'
AFTER READING Walter J. Camper's (Feb. 27 letter, "Prosperity linked to lowering of international trade barriers") disturbingly uninformed defense of the North American Free Trade Agreement and GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), I feel compelled to respond to his misconceptions about Mark Schonbeck's "uninformed fears" (Feb. 9 letter, "Exploitation under guise of `free trade' ").If these "free-trade" regimes are so obviously beneficial, then why are most labor-rights, social-justice, consumer-health and environmental-watchdog groups so alarmed? Is it really because these groups want to "regress back in a nostalgic fantasy" to earlier, less "advanced" times, as Camper implies? Or is it because they have read the fine print of the various sections of NAFTA and GATT, and know there is good reason to be worried? Maybe they've simply observed what's happened in Canada since the free-trade agreement between Canada and the United States went into effect in January 1989. (Hint: Unemployment skyrocketed, Canada's society and environment suffered, and Mulroney became the most unpopular prime minister in Canadian history.)
To get down to specifics:
NAFTA and GATT do far more to guarantee the rights of corporations than to guarantee our rights as citizens to a healthy environment, food and decent working conditions. Under "free-trade" rules, corporations can challenge any health, safety or environmental regulations that interfere with trade in any way, but citizens will have no corresponding right to challenge corporations' unfair or unethical trade practices, or destructive environmental or social influences. Not only will trade disputes be arbitrated by non-elected bodies that are not directly accountable to citizens or even to our elected representatives, but our representatives' ability to challenge trade rules and international deregulation will shrink greatly. Both NAFTA and GATT give corporate needs primacy over community needs, social and environmental needs and even our "national interest."
Camper states that NAFTA promotes "a progressive harmonizing of national regulations." What he doesn't say is that this "harmonizing" really amounts to a leveling downward of health, safety and environmental regulations toward a lower international "common denominator." This leveling is convenient for corporations and polluters, but is not in the best interests of consumers, citizens, our nation or our planet.
Camper also states that NAFTA "prohibits the lowering of standards to attract investment" (e.g., emulating lax environmental and work-place regulations in Mexico, which have attracted thousands of U.S. and Canadian business "investments" along the now-polluted border). But NAFTA doesn't actually "prohibit" the lowering of health, work-place or environmental standards; it merely discourages such lowering and includes no power of enforcement. In other words, NAFTA says to corporations or governments: "You'd better be nice and play fair. By the way, there are no penalties or enforcement mechanisms, so you don't really have to worry about it."
The noble-sounding phrase "free trade" implies that agreements such as NAFTA will enhance and support freedom and democracy. But in reality, "free trade" grants unprecedented freedom and latitude of action to corporations and their investors, while restricting the freedom and action of citizens, consumer and watchdog groups, and even governments.
The mere fact that NAFTA will profoundly affect every aspect of our lives, yet was negotiated by non-elected "trade representatives" without any opportunity for input from our elected representatives shows that NAFTA is inherently anti-democratic in nature.
The likely effects of NAFTA can already be anticipated if we examine what has happened in Canada since the free-trade agreement with the United States went into effect. In Canada, more than 450,000 manufacturing jobs have migrated south to the United States or Mexico, where wages are lower and tax breaks higher; the Canadian economy is a shambles; the once-proud Canadian system of social services has been "streamlined" (read: gutted) almost beyond recognition; and the Canadians are furious, feeling - correctly - that they've been royally shafted by a government sellout to corporate special interests.
We can also observe what has been happening here at home. Over the past decade - a decade marked by increased trade and decreased regulation - the rich got richer, the poor poorer, our society more unbalanced and violent, our schools and health-care system less functional, our government more corrupt and ineffective, and our jobs and freedoms more endangered.
The unstated rationale behind the current free-trade mania is that a uniform, global system of trade and commerce is more important than local, regional and even national autonomy, and that corporate rights are more important than the rights of citizens, governments, entire cultures and the planet itself. Yet this anti-democratic system is touted as the essence of freedom and democracy.
An instructive example: When U.S laws phasing out the import and use of asbestos were passed, the Canadian asbestos industry was quite upset. It persuaded Canada to attack the "unfair" U.S. laws as "non-tariff barriers to trade." When the Canadian challenge was brought to trade arbitration, the United States lost - and now we can't refuse to buy Canadian exports of asbestos without being penalized even though this is certainly unfair to consumers, the Environmental Protection Agency and our government.
Another example: Even though the United States prohibited the import of tuna caught through methods that trap and kill dolphins, under current free-trade rules Mexico challenged this as being "trade restrictive." The argument was that the United States was "interfering with free trade" by dictating to foreign tuna-processors how they could catch tuna, and was also attempting to enforce this ruling in international waters beyond its maritime boundaries. The trade court that heard the challenge ruled in favor of Mexico, overturned the U.S. law. It ordered the United States to accept shipments of tuna from dolphin-killing companies abroad or face penalties.
Despite Camper's naive assertions, we will not be able to maintain or initiate health or environmental standards that go beyond what another country prefers to do - or not do. In essence, this is a legalized form of international commercial blackmail.
It should be obvious that "free trade" is not automatically beneficial and freedom-promoting. If one studies the actual evidence, the likelier conclusion is the opposite - that NAFTA and GATT will act to limit democracy, undermine our political and social freedoms, and will free corporations and international financiers to extract maximum profits while avoiding accountability.
Americans have been conditioned throughout the '80s to see government as "the enemy" and unregulated capitalism as our ally. Since communism has fallen, global capitalism indeed reigns supreme. But we may have much to fear from out-of-control capitalism and free trade. We'd better wake up and look behind all the frenetic free-trade hoopla, for in today's New World Order there's also a new bully on the scene: the potential dictatorial powers of NAFTA and GATT, masquerading as the saviors of freedom and democracy.
Richard Lowenthal of Roanoke is a counselor and environmental activist.