ver the weekend of April’, people across the western hemisphere gathered together, often in violent confrontation with police and military forces, to voice their objections to the specter of free trade. I was one of them. The center of attention was Quebec City, where as many as 60,000 protesters gathered to protest the Summit of the Americas and the signing of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) treaty. Those in Quebec City were supported by thousands of solidarity protests across the western hemisphere, including a protest on the Vermont-Canadian border which I and several other Dartmouth students attended. The protest on the Vermont border was peaceful, leaving nearby police, as well as those scattered along the several miles of I-91 leading to the border, with little to do.
The arrival of the summit brought frustrating restrictions by authorities in Quebec City. The city government issued passes to all residents and denied downtown access to non-residents during the weekend. For the duration of the negotiations, the area was transformed into a militarized zone. A 10-foot high concrete and metal fence was constructed along the 2.3-mile stretch of the downtown area not bordered by cliffs and water. Police attacked confrontational and peaceful protesters alike with tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, tazers, and batons.
Many of those I joined at the border on Saturday the 21st had been refused entry into Canada earlier in the weekend, a large number for reasons that would have posed no problems had the negotiations not been underway. The border patrol turned away one trio because they “did not have enough money to survive a weekend” in Canada. They were told that if they returned with more money, they still would not be able to cross until Monday, after the end of the negotiations. Another woman was refused access to Canada due to a prior arrest—for jaywalking.
Those in favor of the treaty claim that the FTAA will be a step toward global unity and improvement in the quality of life. U.S. national security advisor Condoleeza Rice summed up the philosophy of the Bush administration regarding the agreement: “As we move forward on trade we need to keep in mind that many of our efforts to improve the lives of people, to improve labor standards, to improve the environment will be improved by greater prosperity, and the president is committed to that.” The theory is a variation on the ‘trickle down’ concept, suggesting that any growth in trade will bring economic growth and therefore an increase in the standard of living for the average laborer.
This prediction is problematic. Small economies will be unable to protect their local industries against the power of large corporations that will kill off smaller firms and hold those economies at their mercy. Corporations will be able to take advantage of cheap labor and weak protective legislation in the countries that are most desperate for economic development. Some jobs will be created, but they will pay the cheapest possible wages in the most unregulated labor conditions. If workers unite to demand better treatment, the corporations will be able to relocate to other countries where workers will submit to conditions dictated by their employers.
The FTAA will give corporations the opportunity to erode regulations protecting social, environmental, and human rights. The treaty will allow ‘investor to state’ law suits to be brought to an extra-governmental court where corporations could sue governments over laws that limit the profitability of the corporation. These laws are often environmental and labor protections. Successful suits would require governments to pay corporations for profits lost due to a law, or to remove the law altogether. This is already the case within the regulations of NAFTA. In one instance the U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation used the NAFTA “investor to state” regulations to force the Canadian government to pay $13 million in damages and drop its ban on the dangerous gasoline additive MMT, a known nerve toxin.
In response to the protests and to concerns about human rights, a “democracy clause” has been added to the treaty, requiring that all the countries participating in the FTAA have democratic governments. Ironically, the negotiation of the treaty has so far been conducted in secret exclusively by corporate and governmental elites. Even the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the drafts of the documents under discussion during the years of negotiation.
Despite a signed agreement between the negotiators to initiate the FTAA by 2005, activists are claiming Quebec City as a victory. The protests garnered worldwide attention and brought the talks out into the open. The protests across the western hemisphere proved the strength and size of the opposition to the FTAA. As corporations look to stretch their rule over larger and larger portions of the world, they are sure to face a growing army of opponents and activists.
