The fall of Quebec's 2.5-mile, chain-link "wall of shame" during
the Summit of the Americas will not rank in historical annals with
the storming of the Bastille, but it was still a milestone in the
movement against corporate globalization. It not only made millions
of people more aware of both the proposed Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA) and substantial popular opposition, which gathered
in Canada during the weekend of April 20 to 22. But the protests--both
the direct action and the peaceful march by tens of thousands of
critics from varied countries, occupations and ages--also marked
a continuing evolution of a movement that is itself becoming more
global.
The long-standing issues posed by capital's easy mobility--such
as job loss, environmental damage, economic insecurity and inequality,
sweatshops, "structural adjustment" squeezes, and threats to farmers
and food consumers from corporate agribusiness--have not disappeared,
but they are increasingly being consolidated within a broader framework
of debate. Despite the misleading "trade" label, the issue with
the FTAA is not whether trade should grow in the hemisphere, but
rather how to regulate the global economy. Will the rules favor
those who are already rich and powerful, increasing inequality within
and among countries? Or will the rules favor raising living standards
for workers and peasants while protecting the environment?
The issues are as much political as economic for FTAA opponents--the
human rights
![](moberg2513a.jpg) |
KONRAD FISHER
|
of individuals against the unfettered freedom of capital, democracy
against corporate power and privilege, values of solidarity and justice
against a totally marketized society. As business and political elites
promote their model of a deregulated global economy where giant corporations
rule, the option of reforming or modifying the proposed trade agreements
to protect labor or the environment or to help the poor seems less
and less realistic. The core of these agreements is deeply flawed,
and the development of a comprehensive alternative model of global
economic integration has become more necessary.
High on the hill of old walled Quebec, fortified behind the new
wall and 6,000 police, 34 heads of state from the Americas (all
except for Fidel Castro) declared their commitment to democracy,
pledging to exclude from the "Summit of the Americas process" any
country that undergoes "any unconstitutional alteration or interruption
of the democratic order." But this democracy clause may be as hollow
as their other pledges to "strive to limit military expenditures"
or to "promote compliance with internationally recognized core labor
standards," neither of which Bush, for starters, intends to do.
The new clause offers a narrow and vague definition of democracy,
presumably centered on holding elections, but ignoring other crucial
aspects of a strong democracy, such as an equitable distribution
of wealth. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, in an inadvertent leak
of a radio feed from a closed session, made a similar point to fellow
presidents: "If the democracy doesn't provide land, if it's concentrated
in the hands of 2 percent of the population, we can't speak of democracy."
While U.S. representatives at the summit spoke only of the promise
of growth from free trade, the Canadians alluded to the need for
national governments to redistribute income from growth. Yet capital
mobility in the new global trade regime severely limits the ability
of governments to redistribute. And with no clear standards for
enforcement, the democracy requirement will also be open to manipulation
by the United States to favor right-leaning authoritarians like
Peru's former president Alberto Fujimori, while attacking left-leaning
populists like Chavez whose democratic credentials are called into
question.
Those on both sides of the fence claimed to represent democracy,
which indicates that the social critics of market-focused globalization
have helped to shift the framework of debate. But the heart of the
summit process is really the negotiation of the Free Trade Area
by 2005, which the heads of state endorsed at the meeting. Although
they promised to release the draft negotiating text, the only part
leaked so far--the investment chapter--confirms that the FTAA is
likely to be "even worse than NAFTA," according to Maude Barlow,
chairwoman of the Council of
Canadians, a leading citizens organization.
With a broad, vague definition of investment, the draft document
will follow NAFTA
![](moberg2513b.jpg) |
Those on both sides of the
fence
claimed to represent democracy.
FOREST ETHICS
|
in giving corporations--which would not be signatories to the agreement
and would have no obligations under it--the power to overturn laws
and collect damages from governments whenever they believe a government
policy threatens future profits. It also is likely to give corporations
new powers to attack public services, forcing deregulation, privatization
and marketization of the public sphere. In other words, while promising
democracy, the summit leaders have given the green light to negotiate
an agreement that could give foreign investors the right to nullify
and cripple the democratic process through secretive trade tribunals,
in addition to their bullying of governments with the carrot and stick
of fickle foreign investment.
At the time of NAFTA's ratification, not even most critics imagined
that the investor rights to sue states, embodied in Chapter 11 of
the treaty, could have such ominous potential. Its scope is still
unclear: There is no definitive public record of how many times
corporations have invoked Chapter 11 (at least 17). Most cases have
challenged environmental policy decisions in all three NAFTA countries,
leading to reversals of laws or governmental decisions and major
payments to corporations for potential lost profits (since any government
decision to regulate that reduces such profits can be treated as
"tantamount to appropriation," in the language of NAFTA).
Canadians at the protest in Quebec were especially worried about
a UPS claim for $160 million in damages filed against Canada last
year. UPS argues that the Canadian government violates NAFTA rules
because it does not provide UPS the same access to the offices and
delivery system of Canada Post as it does to the government postal
system's overnight delivery service.
Since the FTAA apparently will broaden coverage of services (much
as negotiators are trying to do now under the World Trade Organization),
critics believe that corporations could use the FTAA to undermine
public services. A study by the Council of Canadians argues that
the FTAA "would include sweeping new measures and clauses that would
allow foreign corporations 'market access' to all public services
and force governments to deregulate those services." For example,
they could demand equal treatment with public health or education
systems, if there is any commerce-like aspect, such as payment of
fees. In this way, they potentially could force the privatization
of Canada's national health system, public education, electric or
water utilities. Although services in the United States are already
more privatized than in Canada, FTAA rules could not only force
more privatization (of education, for example), but also lock in
a privatized, deregulated regime in many countries that would be
impossible to reverse while remaining within the FTAA.
It is no surprise that big corporations--especially U.S. service
firms--and the free-market right are pushing such privatization
agendas, but the trade agreements offer a back-door way for a foreign
company to force a government to adopt policies under the guise
of enforcing trade rules. Investor rights to challenge states are
part of NAFTA and many bilateral trade agreements--and also were
a key component of the temporarily disbanded Multilateral Agreement
on Investment (MAI). Ironically, the United States argued in the
one case brought against this country so far that such claims would
mean that no country "could carry out its most fundamental government
functions unless it was prepared to pay for each and every economic
impact." Yet it is using the FTAA as a vehicle to expand such investor
challenges to the rest of the hemisphere and to use as leverage
in other global agreements. Even if corporations do not win every
case, simply the threat of such challenges will have a chilling
effect on public policy.
On Friday, April 20, when police drove a water cannon into the
crowd of direct action supporters (before it was forced to retreat),
a demonstrator stood in front of it with a sign saying simply, "Democracy,"
briefly echoing the famous image of the lone man against the tank
in Tiananmen Square. The wall itself--10-feet high, anchored in
concrete, cutting an ugly path through a beautiful old community--became
a symbol of undemocratic trade negotiations: secretive, corporate
and unresponsive to popular demands. "Nous ne sommes pas de marchandise,"
("We are not merchandise") protesters chanted as they marched through
the streets, while another demonstrator carried a plaintive placard
reading, "Where is democracy?"
The turnout was huge, mainly from Canada, but also including contingents
from the United States (from direct action militants who were not
deterred by vigilant Canadian customs officials to 15 busloads of
mainly union members from Jobs With
Justice). Organizers of the Saturday march claimed 68,000 took
part; police said 25,000; and it's reasonable to say that at least
45,000 participated, chanting "So So So Solidarité."
But a survey commissioned by the unions revealed that one-fifth
of Canadians would have liked to march in Quebec. (In addition,
there were about 80 coordinated protests in the United States, some
joined by roughly 300 protesters who were prohibited from entering
Canada.)
There were probably close to 7,500 people at the protests on Friday,
primarily younger students and workers, who left Laval University
to march toward the fence, dividing between people going to a "green"
zone with a low risk of arrest and a "yellow" zone of higher risk.
Marching under the banner of the "convergence of anti-capitalist
struggles," a group that had advocated what was euphemistically
called "diversity of tactics," several thousand marchers arrived
at a gate just east of the conference center.
At first they simply stood looking: There appeared to be nothing
organized for anyone to do. Then a few people began throwing things--ranging
from rolls of toilet paper to golf balls (and eventually large rocks
and other more potent objects)--at the line of police in riot helmets
and shields. Many front-line marchers were dressed in black, wearing
helmets and face or gas masks, body padding and other gear for physical
confrontation. As the police stood their ground 30 yards behind
the fence, a few people climbed the gate, then with the help of
others pulled it down. The crowd cheered, but only a few dozen people
walked through the breach, most of them throwing objects at the
police. Then the medieval faction--later identified as the Deconstructionist
Institute for Surreal Topology--pulled up its home-made catapult
and launched a pink stuffed animal at the police. Even ordinary
citizens from the neighborhoods as well as nonviolent protesters
celebrated the fall of the fence.
Although chanting pagans, street theater groups, drummers and individual
![](moberg2513c.jpg) |
One fifth of Canadians surveyed
would have liked to march in Quebec.
MICHAEL KARPOFF/NEWSMAKERS
|
anachronisms (like a young man dressed as an Easter bunny handing
out chocolate candies) gave the promised air of a "carnival against
capitalism," a monotony, rather than a diversity, of tactics was soon
set for the next two days. Police began firing tear gas both at the
rock throwers and into the surrounding crowd. While most people fled
the stinging gas, a few militants picked up canisters and threw them
back at the police. For the rest of the day on Friday, then for most
of Saturday afternoon and evening, there was a give and take of protesters
advancing on police, usually with a few people throwing things, then
the police firing tear gas--as well as water cannons and rubber and
plastic bullets--and then moving out to disperse the crowd.
Unlike the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, there
was no disciplined strategy of nonviolent civil disobedience. At
the same time, the relatively few attacks on private property consisted
mainly of spraying graffiti rather than smashing store windows,
although one lone policeman along the march route was beaten badly.
Clearly the relatively small number of people who fought with the
police defined the action, leaving most others as observers waiting
to flee the tear gas. Although at least 250 people eventually were
arrested (many snatched from peaceful side streets Latin American-style
by plainclothes police) and about 60 protesters were injured seriously,
the police did not attempt mass arrests or resort to indiscriminate
clubbing of bystanders. This was not a Chicago 1968 police riot,
though the police did become more aggressive on Saturday.
The organizers of the mass protest, mainly the Canadian labor movement,
citizen groups and the Hemispheric
Social Alliance--a group of 2,300 delegates from every Latin
American country (including Cuba) who held an alternative Peoples'
Summit--did not repudiate the militants. Their leaders even blamed
the summit presidents for initiating the first vandalism, by building
the wall and unleashing "the violence of the free market." But there
was a sharp division on tactics. At a crucial point in the big march,
militants chanting "to the left, not to the right"--both a logistical
and political exhortation--tried to divert the crowd to the fence,
but the vast majority followed the planned route leading away from
the fence to a doleful parking lot near an arena.
The unions and citizen groups undoubtedly could not have produced
the numbers and the variety of people if there had been a significant
chance of violence or arrest, and it would have been irresponsible
for them to lead the group to the fence under the circumstances.
But the fence would have been the logical, dramatic culmination
if there had been assurances that the actions would have included
nothing beyond civil disobedience, such as organized mass arrests
for entering the forbidden zone.
Protests like the ones in Quebec have energized the movement against
corporate globalization, and summits and meetings of international
institutions like the WTO and World Bank provide one of the few
opportunities to catch the eye of the mass media. But the movement
in opposition to the FTAA needs to go beyond such protests to build
a broad political base rooted in communities throughout the Americas
and engaged in the domestic politics of each country--such as the
upcoming fight against "fast track" authority (now called "trade
promotion") in the U.S. Congress.
Also, although it's easier to generate popular resistance against
bad trade deals, there's value in showing other ways to expand trade
that deliver results for working people. The Hemispheric Social
Alliance began developing its ideas on "alternatives for the Americas"
at a gathering in Santiago, Chile, during the previous Summit of
the Americas. At that time, there was more talk of fighting for
reforms than outright opposition, says executive secretary Hector
de la Cueva, a Mexican economist. But the experience with NAFTA,
capped by the unexpectedly aggressive corporate use of investor
challenges to governments, has persuaded more groups that the globalization
model is fundamentally flawed.
Shortly before the Summit in Quebec, for example, the Economic
Policy Institute, a progressive Washington think tank, released
a study arguing that NAFTA has failed workers in all three countries.
In the EPI analysis, NAFTA eliminated 766,000 actual and potential
U.S. jobs, while increasing inequality, suppressing wages and weakening
unions. Foreign direct investment grew in Mexico (though not total
investment), but most of the job growth was either in the informal
sector or the maquiladoras that use imported components to manufacture
products almost entirely for export to the United States; meanwhile,
real wages declined by roughly one-fifth for most employees. In
Canada, growth slowed, inequality rose, wages stagnated, and there
was a net job loss despite export growth.
The Hemispheric Social Alliance's alternative, which will be revised
again following the summit, insists that integration of the Americas
requires special efforts to encourage development of the poorer
countries, since treating all countries as equal in an unregulated
market simply exacerbates inequalities and favors the rich and powerful,
no matter where they live. "Previously the question was what country
will benefit and who will lose," de la Cueva says. "The question
now is who in each country will win, and who will lose?"
The Alliance supports trade and foreign investment, not as "ends
in themselves, but rather [as] the instruments for achieving just
and sustainable development." For instance, it argues that governments
should be able to regulate speculative capital flows and set requirements
for foreign direct investment to encourage local development, and
that citizen groups as well as governments should be able to sue
corporations that violate rules, but investors should not be able
to sue governments.
The Alliance is pushing for national referendums on the FTAA and
its alternative. Meanwhile the Citizens
Trade Campaign, a coalition based in the United States, is urging
organizations to unite around a 10-point opposition to the FTAA,
which includes: prohibiting investor-state lawsuits, protecting
basic social rights and public services from trade rules, restricting
corporate patents on life forms and medicine, safeguarding small
farmers, preserving natural resources, prohibiting erosion of public
interest laws, promoting sustainable development, limiting financial
speculation and protecting women, minorities and indigenous people.
Despite the solidarity of the world leaders, there are tensions
among even elites that could scuttle the FTAA: trade disputes (between
Canada and the United States, the United States and Brazil, Brazil
and Canada), competing strategies (such as Latin American regional
alliances), revived discomfort with U.S. dominance (which would
be worsened by the war against drugs and guerrillas financed under
Plan Colombia), popular political pressures (as some leaders acknowledged,
citing the protesters or doubters back home), misgivings of small,
poor countries (some of whose leaders indicated in the closed session
that aid and special treatment to spur development were their priorities),
and political wild cards (like Chavez of Venezuela, who withheld
his commitment to complete a deal by 2005).
When the FTAA was first proposed, the free market fundamentalists
felt that they were in a position to secure a radically deregulated
new global playing field for multinational corporations. In recent
years, with the opposition movement growing in breadth and depth
across the world, crises proliferating and popular misgivings growing,
the climate for new "free trade" agreements has chilled. The winds
of protest from Quebec make it even icier. ![](/global/end.gif)
David Moberg is a senior editor of In These Times
and fellow of The Nation Institute. His e-mail address is dmoberg@igc.org.
|