FTAA: Spinning Out of Control

GREG GUMA

Corporate media outlets outdid themselves in April during coverage of the Quebec City summit, designed to win support for a so-called Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). After largely ignoring the story in the days immediately preceding the meeting, TV networks went wall-to-wall as soon as the first protesters began dismantling the security perimeter separating them from the gathered heads of state.

Yet, less than 24 hours later, despite an escalation of police violence in Quebec, large protests throughout the Americas, and serious disagreements among leaders attending the summit, coverage shifted again. Footage of the protest was cut off, and a new story emerged.

Late on Saturday night, the Associated Press (AP) led the charge, announcing in a headline that the proposed trade deal had been "ratified." Despite reality -- notably the fact that actual ratification is in serious doubt and years away -- the clear intent was to leave the impression that a deal had already been struck. By Monday morning, the official line was in place: Despite protests, announced the wire service, an "accord" had been signed. Newspapers across the country dutifully disseminated this misinformation. In fact, what they signed was merely a "communique" - about as binding as a joint press release - that expressed a willingness to keep at it. Behind the scenes, however, all was not well. Even before the meeting, Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso expressed concerns about the risks posed to vulnerable Latin American economies by the agreement. Over the weekend, Venezuela dissented from several points in the communique, saying it wouldn't be able to meet the 2005 deadline for ratification. In response, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien provided personal assurances that Venezuela would be allowed to stay in the club anyway, until a referendum could be stage-managed.

Caught between US pressure and internal opposition to corporate trade deals, fueled by the Zapatista rebellion, Mexican President Vicente Fox struggled to find some middle ground. While backing the FTAA, he called for initiatives to promote democracy and reduce poverty, decrying the "whims of market forces."

Doubts were also growing that President-select George W. Bush will succeed in winning "fast track" - recently renamed "trade promotion authority." According to Sen. Max Baucus, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, "He (Bush) doesn't have the votes because they've not yet worked out ways to adequately and meaningfully deal with labor and environmental issues." Without fast track, many Latin American countries won't take US promises seriously, and the FTAA is unlikely to be implemented. Insiders say Bush has less than a year to win that fight.

In reality, the Quebec talks failed. No agreement was reached on an FTAA text, which helps explain why the draft document wasn't released. Instead, the "communique" attempted to spin the setback by focusing on an empty promise that future FTAA member countries will have to observe "democratic norms." That allows the US to rationalize the exclusion of Cuba, the hemisphere's harshest critic of corporate-driven trade rules, and intensify pressure on Haiti, whose President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is again out of favor in Washington.

Playing the "democracy" card underscores the rank hypocrisy that characterizes talk about "free" trade. If Western Hemisphere leaders were really concerned about democracy, they'd opposed the US-financed war in Colombia and refuse to attend the next meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO), slated to be held in Qatar, an Arabian Peninsula monarchy where political demonstrations are prohibited (TF, March 2001). Neither is likely to happen soon.

The good news is that, despite the official spin and media preoccupation with protest tactics, the Summit provided a golden opportunity to build solidarity. In addition to the 70,000 people who took to the streets of Quebec City, thousands more converged across the US, at the Mexican border, and in South America. The global indy media network provided effective on-the-spot reporting, countering the corporate line, highlighting state repression, and uniting the opposition.

In fact, back peddling at the Summit was a direct response to the protests.

Great pains were taken to reassure the public that issues like environmental protection and labor rights aren't being ignored. Whether this turns out to be true, however, will depend on how supporters of fair trade and globalization from below follow up.

The next major FTAA summit won't take place until 2004, if at all. The location is Argentina, and President Fernando de la Rua promises that walls won't be needed "to keep out those who come to protest." That also remains to be seen, given widespread resistance there to privatization, budget cuts, and the FTAA. In early April, when trade ministers gathered in Buenos Aires to work on the text, 3000 people attended marches and rallies, denouncing the plan as an "illicit association" and a "diagram made by the US for even more subjugation of the peoples of Latin America."

If "fast track" is defeated, by 2004 the FTAA and other corporate trade and investment deals --- as well as Bush's plan to "compete in the long term with the Far East and Europe" -- may be fragile things indeed. Bush will be struggling for election (as opposed to selection) while simultaneously meeting with massive international resistance. That's the possibility opened up by recent protests. The question now is whether and how the opening will be seized. -- April 23, 2001