|
 Major trade accord negotiations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) are stalled due to huge differences in views of what should be included in these discussions.
Northern governments, i.e. United States and Europe, want to expand the scope of the negotiations to include new themes that have little to do with commercial trade, such as investments, public services, government purchases and intellectual property rights.
Many Southern governments are not interested in discussing these new themes; especially as long as Northern governments refuse to discuss removing their agricultural subsidies and supports.
Brazil's government has played an important role in shaping the content of these free trade accords.
The WTO negotiations in Cancun and the FTAA negotiations in Miami, in October and November of 2003, marked a change in how these accords are being negotiated.
Before these meetings, the United States and Europe were advancing in expanding these accords to include the new themes.
In both cases, Brazil led blocks of countries that stopped this advance, putting the negotiations at a standstill.
Since these meetings, neither of these trade accords have advanced to any significant degree.
Part of the Brazilian government's firmness is in response to popular pressure.
In 2002, the Catholic Church, social movements, unions and civil society organized a plebiscite concerning the FTAA.
Over 98% of the 10,234,143 people that voted in the plebiscite thought that Brazil should not sign the FTAA accord.
Moreover, 95% voted that the government should pull out of the negotiations immediately.
These same organizations now demand an official plebiscite in which all Brazilians would vote to define whether Brazil would sign the FTAA or not.
Since 1989, there has been a significant change in the scope of free trade agreements.
Corporate Power
That year, a trade accord between Canada and the United States was the first trade agreement to include a chapter on investments. which gave the right for corporations to sue foreign governments because of their domestic laws that interfere with corporate investments.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which took effect in 1994, also contained this provision. Most trade negotiations today do.
With these new rights, corporations are challenging governments' sovereign ability to define and enforce laws within their country.
In one NAFTA case, Mexico was forced to pay $15.6 million to an American waste disposal company because the government had declared a piece of land held by the company to be an ecological reserve.
Investment provisions like this are already limiting legislatures around the world from creating new laws that protect the environment or public health.
Besides investments, Northern governments are also trying to expand the scope of these accords to include the areas of public services, government purchases and intellectual property rights.
Southern governments, popular movements and development organizations around the Americas complain that these measures will greatly limit the possibility of governments to implement development policies.
Instead of helping to decrease poverty, these accords will only further the inequalities that already exist both within and between countries, these organizations argue.
While the Northern governments push to include these new themes, they remain adamant in maintaining their supports for their agriculture, the one area where most southern countries would be able to benefit most.
The lobbies of the agro-industry in the U.S. and Europe have been able to pressure their governments not to cede in this area.
The Trade Promotion Authority, or “Fast Track” that the President of the United States uses to negotiate free trade accords, guarantees that he will not be able to lower tariffs on over 300 agricultural products without the approval of the Congress, where the agricultural lobby is stronger.
Industry-Agriculture Split
In Brazil, there is a growing division between industry and big agriculture over these trade agreements.
In the last meeting of a national development council, representatives from the two sectors almost came to blows over the negotiations that the Mercosul (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay) is holding with the European Union (EU).
In these negotiations, industry is upset because the government appears to be willing to cede more than ever before in the areas of government purchases, public services, investments and intellectual property in exchange for dubious gains in agriculture.
The signing of the EU-Mercosul accord, originally set for October 2004, has been pushed back until 2005.
The negotiating of new themes with the EU are especially troubling for many because, within the negotiations of the FTAA, Brazil has said that it will only negotiate these themes within the WTO negotiations.
By opening up to the EU in these areas, Brazil shows that it could be willing to discuss these themes within the FTAA.
Until today, the Brazilian government has been able to join forces with other Southern governments in the FTAA and WTO negotiations to hold off the inclusion of new themes and pressure for the lowering of agricultural supports in Northern countries.
In the face of such difficulties in continental and worldwide negotiations, the United States has changed its focus to bilateral and multilateral agreements with smaller countries where it is easier to influence the outcome of negotiations.
The U.S. recently signed a free trade agreement with Chile, and finished negotiations and awaits a difficult approval in the Congress of an accord with Central America (CAFTA) and another with Uruguay.
The most recent Congressional votes related to free trade have passed by a matter of very few votes. There is no guarantee that future votes will pass.
Even within the United States it is becoming difficult to find people who support these types of free trade accords.
SEJUP - Brazilian Service of Justice and Peace
www.sejup.org
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed