Why oppose the FTAA? Here are some reasons.

As we look ahead to the Quebec Summit of the Americas in April, and the bizarre combination of presidential photo–op and anarchistic rage that will dominate our televisions and newspapers, there are two aspects of the proposed "free" trade deal that are worth considering. One is the contrast between national leaders arguing that trade agreements will stimulate economic growth and benefit the poor, even though several of their countries are home to widespread human rights abuse that is an aspect of the protection of upper class privilege. The other is the recent trend for corporations, when they are faced with environmental regulations or other restrictions that affect their profit, to sue governments using trade agreements that are supposedly meant to protect them from appropriation by outlaw regimes.

Human Rights Watch's "World Report 2000"concluded that, in the Americas, "one thing remained constant: the everyday violation of human rights–including police abuse, torture, and lack of access to effective justice systems–required far greater attention from policy makers than they were willing to recognize or give". Conditions of detention throughout the region are abusive and inhumane, especially in Venezuela, Brazil, Haiti, Panama, and El Salvador.

Similarly, Amnesty International reports that people were tortured by agents of the state in twenty–three countries in the Americas in 1999. Extrajudicial executions were carried out in eight countries.

The proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas will combine wealthy and poor countries into a zone of commerce that will set aside individual human rights, along with collective human rights – like the right to development and others that recognize that people shouldn't live in poverty – in the interests of private profit.

The lack of protection for human rights in many of the countries of the Americas is rightly a concern as we charge into a new agreement guaranteeing the rights of corporations.

Other agreements have been successfully manipulated by large corporations to provide them a level of protection that was not intended when the agreements were signed. Their history shows that FTAA will not provide anything close to a necessary level of protection of individuals or communities from corporate exploitation of natural and human resources.

When NAFTA was signed, for example, it was agreed that businesses would be protected against "expropriation". To most people, expropriation refers to a government taking over a business operation, as the Castro regime did to American operations in Cuba.

Now expropriation includes a wide range of government actions that affect some portion of profits that a company could expect to have made. Methanex Corporation of Vancouver is suing the US because California is funding a study of a gasoline additive's health and environmental impact. The study will probably show that the additive does cause health problems and should be banned, so Methanex is suing under NAFTA because of potential loss of earnings.

The Metalclad case is similar. A NAFTA tribunal awarded Metalclad Corporation US$17 million after a Mexican state governor refused to allow it to reopen and expand a toxic dump site with a history of problems.

Perhaps the protection of corporate profit is at its ugliest when it comes to AIDS medication. Only about 5 per cent of the 30 million AIDS sufferers in impoverished countries have access to the drugs they need. Brazil has cut its AIDS death rate in half by providing cheap generic equivalents to patented medication that is priced out of reach of most people. It can expect to be hit with penalties under the FTAA agreement which, like other trade agreements, keep these medications out of reach by strengthening the protection of patents awarded pharmaceutical companies.

Given the continuing ascension of corporate power relative to that of the state, and the absence of any real political will to ensure respect for human rights, there is no real chance that the FTAA will provide anything positive for social welfare or protection of the environment. The Americas are infected by human rights abuse and social injustice, and until these are addressed at a fundamental level, commercial treaties like the FTAA should be abandoned.