Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater

  
Global trade debates are growing more polarized and complicated. European and US rivalries continue, and other US trading partners are becoming frustrated with the slow and unclear trade policies of the Bush administration. Sensing this weakness, governments and anti-free trade groups have become more active and outspoken. As the technical dimension of trade negotiations gives way to the political necessities of getting legislation passed, the sins of omission are coming home to roost. The lack of dialogue with civil society and the failure to give serious consideration to the social dimension of trade are obstacles to any trade expansion. The hope for real integration is slowing as group after group moves to block an expansion of international commerce that could in fact benefit societies and not just economies.

US threats to defend the domestic steel industry with what is assumed are protectionist measures, coupled with the lack of ability to get fast track legislation moving in Congress, have weakened the Bush administration's ability to focus on the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Even bilateral treaties such as the one with Chile seem to have stalled due to trade disputes and the inability to deal with the key issues of agriculture and anti-dumping. The European Union has seized this moment of weakness to accelerate negotiations with Latin America, promising a pace that would move ahead of the FTAA process. The European strategy aims to deal with the conflicts over agricultural market access by allowing non-agricultural sectors to move ahead with tariff reduction and improved market access. This European initiative is one of the reasons that Mercosur is hanging together. Even Chile's foreign minister has held low-key talks in Argentina and Brazil aimed at shoring up that country's relations with its South American partners.

Meanwhile, anti-free trade rejectionism, especially the rhetoric of anti-corporativist rejectionism, is exacerbating the trend toward polarization and hurting the chances for serious dialogue. Unfortunately, the moderate majority who are opposed to free trade are tarred with the same brush as the more extreme anti-corporativist, anarchist protest movements. Ninety percent of the protestors at the Quebec City Summit marched away from confrontation at the Summit perimeter fence, not toward it. Yet, State Department officials at a recent Summit briefing at the University of Miami omitted any mention of the Hemispheric Social Alliance. Indeed, they confused the People's Summit with the meeting between civil society groups and the trade ministers inside the perimeter. It is no wonder that anti-FTAA groups excluded from dialogue are increasingly taking to the streets.

The next significant antiglobalization protests are planned for September 29 during the World Bank/IMF meetings in Washington, D.C. Many groups with many agendas plan to protest. This will be an opportunity to see how the new post-Quebec alignments are playing out, and to judge the role of the US trade union movement. The Latin American Solidarity Conference (LASC) has identified five main protest items:
1) No to Plan Colombia
2) No to the FTAA
3) US Bases out of Vieques and all of Latin America
4) Close the School of the Americas / WHISC
5) Stop the Direct Assault on people of color and the poor in the US and Latin America through the phony war on drugs

There is no sense yet of whether these goals will be compatible with those of other organizations. A great deal of tolerance between the various groups and their tactics and issues was the norm in Quebec City. The Hemispheric Social Alliance even co-signed a declaration with the more radical, local activist group SALAMI to protest the "repression" of the violent demonstrators. What will be the relations between these groups in Washington?

Clearly, especially given the change in the leadership of the US Senate, fast track trade legislation will not pass without a major battle. As positions harden, measured debate on the importance of trade as a motor of development has suffered as well. By polarizing the issue of trade, we run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.