Would you support an agreement that forces the government to pay multi-national corporations not to poison citizens and destroy natural resources? Sound far-fetched?
In 1997, Canada banned a gasoline additive, MMT, that was found to cause adverse neurological effects similar to Parkinson’s disease. Five days later Ethyl Corporation, a U.S. company responsible for exporting the additive to Canada, filed a claim for compensation because of lost potential profits. Canada agreed to lift the ban and pay $13 million for legal fees and lost profits.
In 1996, a Mexican state declared a toxic-waste storage owned by U.S.-based Metaclad Corporation an environmental hazard and ordered the site shut down. The result: Mexico had to pay Metaclad $16.7 million.
And after Santa Monica’s municipal wells were contaminated and closed, California enacted a law to phase out MBTE, the carcinogenic gasoline additive responsible for the contamination. Soon after, Canadian-based Methanex Corporation, the producer of MBTE, filed a claim against California for $1 billion.
These claims and the resulting settlements were made possible by the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA grants foreign investors the ability to file a claim against a country if the ability to make a profit is impeded. The cases are decided in secret by anonymous tribunals. The proceedings and findings are not disclosed to the public unless both the investors and government allow it.
“Free trade” agreements also dismantle environmental and health regulations by resulting in a “race to the bottom.” Multinational corporations are “free” to move their operations to countries with the lowest wages and weakest environmental, safety and health laws. In order to compete, the other countries must lower wages and dismantle regulations. Proponents of “free trade” justify this by claiming it allows “less developed” countries to compete more effectively, and therefore it reduces poverty. The statistics say otherwise. For example, the United Nations reported the number of Mexicans in poverty increased 47 percent from 1994 to 1997.
Economists like to say there is no such thing as a “free lunch.” Yet, they tout “free trade” without recognizing the costs. Free trade does not exist. Citizens are paying via lower real wages, increased taxes, decreased governmental services and environmental degradation. By allowing corporations to externalize health and environmental costs, wealth and power are transferred from the public as a whole to the wealthy minority.
Sound bad? It’s about to get worse. On April 18-22, negotiators from 34 countries will meet in Quebec to continue discussion of the Free Trade of Americas Agreement, often referred to as “NAFTA on steroids.” It will incorporate many of the provisions from NAFTA, the WTO and the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment into one agreement and will cover all countries in the Western Hemisphere except Cuba.
Since late 1999, trade ministers have been meeting secretly to negotiate FTAA details. Not even members of Congress have been allowed to know exactly what is being written. However, more than 500 corporate representatives have access to FTAA/NAFTA expansion documents. Who do you think is really running our country?
A coalition of groups, including the Campus Green Party, will be providing an FTAA teach-in Saturday, April 14, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. in Grayson Hall. It’s free, and unlike the negotiations in Quebec, everyone is invited.