"Think of NAFTA as a Trojan Horse attack on sovereignty and democracy". So says the US based Public Citizen organisation. I guess they must be ‘anti-American’.
In 1994 the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States signed into effect the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). After ten years the damage NAFTA "has wrought for millions of people in the US, Mexico and Canada" cannot be overlooked by us as our political ‘leaders’ rush headlong into a ‘Free’ Trade Agreement that has its foundations in the NAFTA experiment.
As you are probably aware the Howard government has undermined our nation’s adherence to a raft of international laws. These laws only work if the ‘players’ remain inside the system. The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement takes us out of all international protections – protections designed to reinforce the notion of national sovereignty and self-determination within a system of rules and sanctions.
Howard, Downer, Vail, Rudd, Latham and Beasley all spout the same rhetoric that Australia is and will remain a sovereign, independent nation and that the Australian people will make their own decisions. There’s been a lot of argy bargy over so called ‘amendments’ to the FTA to protect our pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Labor is trying to make a fuss over this and the compliant, ignorant media (including ‘our’ ABC) has not challenged once, the fact that these changes can be made but that the real ‘bite’ in the FTA is to be found in the section containing Article 21 (and its subclauses). This article is almost a carbon copy of the NAFTA Chapter 11. This chapter and the FTA Article 21 have nothing to do with ‘trade’ and everything to do with eroding our sovereignty and taking away from our government the right to rule for us and in our best interests (although it could be argued that this notion went AWOL long ago). What can we learn from NAFTA and what might these lessons mean for us? I will offer a few examples that illustrate the erosion of sovereignty and the loss of national self-determination that will be part of the FTA process.
The FTA has been presented as something that affects, positively ‘the national interest’. However it also affects local government. In 1997 a local council in Mexico refused a proposal for a toxic waste dump within its boundary. The US based firm, Metalclad, took their case to the ‘independent’ tribunal for a decision. The Mexican government was fined $US15.6 million dollars. In 1998 a US based petrochemical company ‘successfully’ sued the Canadian government because an existing statute banning their petrol additive was found to be in breach of free trade ‘principles’. The additive, MMT, harms the nervous system and was banned by the Canadian government after a health warning from their own scientists. That ban was overturned and Canadian taxpayers were forced to hand over $US13 million. A further $US50 million was handed over to another toxic waste company who argued that a provincial ban on the transporting of toxic waste between borders was illegal. The law was found to breach free trade principles and had to be changed.
In all, almost $US13 billion in fines and penalties have been claimed by private companies in Canada, the US and Mexico over the last 10 years under the NAFTA regime. That’s $13 billion of taxpayer’s money that has been diverted into the private coffers of businesses. That’s $13 billion dollars that could have been spent on schools, hospitals, support for the disabled, programs for the un or under-employed or for capital works like fixing infrastructure or building and staffing aged care facilities. But who makes these decisions, all of which fall under the ill-defined and vague definitions of Article 21 of the FTA, the only binding section in the document?
As Dr. Patricia Ranald from the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET) observes, Article 21 "can be used to challenge social regulation judged to be inconsistent with the agreement, like the pricing of medicines or the regulation of essential services. It is a clear restriction on the democratic right of governments to regulate in the public interest." Put simply, "social regulation" is what our domestic laws are meant to achieve.
For instance, if our government has certain import laws that state produce must meet minimum health and nutrition criteria in order to be sold in supermarkets and a US based exporter of produce believes those minimum standards prevent it from selling its goods here, it can challenge our government. If our government resists and the bureaucrats can’t work it out, the final decision is left up to a panel of three trade law ‘experts’ who don’t not have to be publicly named, who do not have to report to the public on how they reach their decision and who can impose any fine or penalty they see fit. There is no higher authority for our government to appeal to. Not only would the government be forced to pay the fine it would also be forced to amend the health and import laws to allow a lesser quality product be imported and sold. There is no recourse under the FTA to the UN, the World Trade Organisation or any other supranational body for arbitration or appeal. The Trojan Horse is at the gate and our so-called political leaders are swinging on the key to open up and let it in.
The scenario I just outlined is not restricted to national issues. Perhaps a multinational is trying to get into your local preschool by attempting to sell a curriculum package that promotes a certain brand of fast food. The parent run committee could fight it. The local council could join in but in the end if the multinational was to mount a case under the rules of the FTA and an adverse finding was handed down by the secret tribunal, then your kids and grandkids would be eating fast food and being propagandised and there would be nothing you could do about it - unless you removed them and kept them at home.
Ten years of NAFTA has shown us what a Free Trade Agreement really is, an attack on all that our Primeminiature says he holds true. The ‘Aussie’ sense of a fair go and ‘copping it sweet’ when you get it wrong have no place under the FTA. As someone once said, there is a golden rule we must all follow. Them that got the gold make the rules and the Trojan Horse that is being invited into our nation may be gold plated but that is only for show.
The thin veneer of lies and deceit that encase the machinations of governments must be resisted. The battle for our hearts and minds is intense and unrelenting. There are armies of public servants who no longer serve the public interest but are forced to work under short-term contract and face dismissal if they buck the system. Our politicians see their lifestyle as a ‘career’ choice. Our civic leaders are put through ‘leadership’ courses designed to demonstrate that the only way to ‘get ahead’ is to conform and obey the rules of the system. The FTA is a symptom of our times not a cause of the dis-ease we feel. So where do we turn to find a model if we want to change the way our society is heading? I say look to South America and to the grass roots movements in Venezuela, Bolivia and Brazil.
These peoples are slowly turning their systems around after being the subject of the great US social and economic ‘experiment’. Neo-liberalism was first tried in these nations and in order to carry out their experiment the US installed fascist regimes who would do their bidding (no need for that here we already have Howard and Latham). However after 40 or so years the experiment has failed. Poverty and deprivation has replaced the once prosperous lifestyles of the citizens. Fear and desperation are slowly being turned into positive programs for social change and the rebuilding of a sense of national pride and local identification. While it is early days and the first faltering steps have been unsteady for these nations, it is my belief is that we have far more to lose by allowing our so called leaders to sign away our children’s inheritance than by actively resisting and opposing it. The FTA can be defeated simply by walking away from it.
The outcomes of the next week or so will be on our heads and rest on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. What we allow now will affect them later. The question facing us as a nation is, what kind of future do we want?
Look into the eyes of those you love and reflect on the bloodshed in Troy. After all it was the lure of the prestige of being able to say, ‘we have the trophy’ that led them into the foolishness that finally destroyed them. What say you to our foolish leaders?