[mobglob-discuss] FTAA negotiations and Venezuela

[michael a. lebowitz]

Here is the latest from Venezuelanalysis on the FTAA negotiations--- 
followed by a short note I had done for Canadian Dimension in early October 
for a feature they were doing.
         in solidarity,
         michael

FTAA Negotiations Close to Failing in Miami
Wednesday, Nov 19, 2003Print format
By: Venezuelanalysis.com
In order to save what can be saved of the FTAA negotiations in Miami this 
week, “the U.S. has chosen to focus on bilateral agreements and a piecemeal 
FTAA,” according to Venezuela’s chief negotiator and vice-Minister for 
Production and Commerce, Victor Alvarez. He added that the “effort of the 
U.S. to achieve a comprehensive hemispheric agreement in the interests of 
transnational corporations is about to be defeated.” In order to save what 
it can, the U.S. is trying to reach a series of bilateral agreements with 
different Latin American countries. This U.S. approach is coming to be 
known as an ALCA “a la carte,” meaning that the U.S. and different 
cooperating countries will pick and choose issues of the free trade agenda 
that they can agree upon.
So far, the U.S. has found Colombia, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Bolivia, Canada, 
the Central American countries, and the Dominican Republic to be the most 
supportive of the U.S. agenda. These countries announced yesterday that 
they will sign bilateral free trade agreements with the U.S.
On the other hand, the Caricom countries of the Caribbean, Mercosur (mainly 
Argentina and Brazil), and Venezuela are resisting the FTAA as the U.S. 
envisions it, meaning that a complete FTAA agreement by the year 2005 will 
be impossible to achieve.
Venezuela’s position in the negotiations, is based on three points, 
according to a recent communiqué of the Venezuelan negotiating team: first, 
the sovereignty of states, second, the defense of the capacity of the state 
to develop public policies for the well being of its people, and third, the 
participation of the affected populations in these types of negotiations 
with transparency.
As such, Venezuela proposed a key paragraph in the wording of the final 
agreement, which states, “The commitments that the countries that agree to 
the FTAA engage in must be compatible with the doctrines of the sovereignty 
of states and of the respective constitutional texts and should not limit 
the capacity of states to develop public policies for the benefit of 
national interests and the well being of their people.”
Venezuelan Civil Society Representatives Oppose the FTAA
While the trade ministers of the Americas are meeting in secret in Miami, 
thousands of individuals and organizations that are part of the global 
social justice movement, including a diverse delegation of Venezuelans, are 
participating in public forums to discuss the FTAA and to demonstrate 
against it. Dozens of teach-ins and discussions are taking place, which 
take a closer look at what the FTAA would mean for organized labor, for 
agriculture, for intellectual property rights, genetically modified foods, 
the environment, militarism, women, etc.
Tuesday night the documentary “The Revolution Will not Be Televised” was 
shown as part of a series of documentaries on the Americas.
Tomorrow, on Thursday, which is the first day of the meeting of trade 
ministers, a major mobilization will take place. Miami and the U.S. federal 
government have prepared by closing down most of the city center. 
Approximately $8 million of the $87 billion Iraq spending bill were 
allocated towards the protection of the FTAA negotiations from the 
demonstrations. As a result, the massive police presence makes the city 
center look like an occupied city.
---------------------
Venezuela confronts the FTAA

         Michael A. Lebowitz (4 October 2003)

Our principle, announced Ramón Rosales (Venezuela’s Minister of Production 
and Commerce) is “as much market as possible, and as much state as 
necessary.” What that statement, released at the September 2003 WTO meeting 
in Cancun, means in terms of so-called international trade agreements can 
only be understood in the context of what Venezuela was arguing at Cancun.
         Challenging the effects of “free trade” on human development, 
calling for an end to an unjust economic order, for the prioritizing of the 
fight against poverty and social exclusion, for putting human rights before 
corporate rights, the Venezuelan position called for a re-emphasis upon 
“the role of public policy as a tool without which it is impossible to 
achieve the stated goal of equitable, democratic, and environmentally 
sustainable development.”
         In short, it was a position which directly rejects neo-liberalism 
and the international institutions intended to enforce it. And, that is 
precisely the stance taken by the government of Hugo Chavez for the 
discussions of FTAA. In a statement released in April to delegations 
participating in the FTAA Trade Negotiations Committee (and oriented to 
gaining support throughout the continent), Venezuela declared that “the 
FTAA is not merely a trade agreement”; it establishes “a supranational 
legal and institutional system that will eventually prevail over the 
current system in our country.” Precisely because of the implications of 
FTAA for national sovereignty, Venezuela announced that any FTAA agreement 
would be the subject of a national referendum. Indeed, it pointed out that 
Article 73 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
requires a referendum: “International treaties, conventions, and agreements 
that could compromise national sovereignty or transfer power to 
supranational entities (
) shall be submitted to referendum.”
         In calling for the people to decide, the Venezuelan government’s 
own position would be clear. Ever since the defeated coup of 11 April 2002 
and the subsequent opposition sabotage that has produced a crisis, the 
document noted, “Venezuela has a new appreciation of the extraordinary 
importance of the need for governments to be able to draw on a wide 
spectrum of public policies to respond to crises (whether environmental, 
political, or economic), as well as to be able to tackle the challenges and 
demands associated with fair, sustainable development.” The proposal for 
FTAA would prevent this. Indeed, the government argued, “The recent 
sabotage of PDVSA, the national oil industry, is a pathetic example of 
everything stated in this document.”
         Widespread democratic involvement, though, should not be limited 
to a vote at the end. Precisely because of the vast implications of FTAA, 
Venezuela declared in its statement to the Trade Negotiations Committee, 
“we cannot continue to negotiate as if these were just some trade 
negotiations in which only experts and specialists in the different areas 
of commercial and international law need participate. Democratic 
negotiations need to include in an effective manner all sectors of the 
population continent-wide because every sector will be affected to some 
extent by the agreements being negotiated.”
         And, what of those popular sectors in Venezuela at this point? 
Although trade unions and popular sectors have indicated that they oppose 
FTAA and all it stands for, the priority is support for the government in 
its resolve--- support in the face of an opposition aided by the US 
government and prepared again to do everything possible to remove the 
Chavez government. The struggle against international capital and its goals 
at this point in Venezuela is a struggle to maintain and deepen the 
Bolivarian Revolution.



---------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax:   (604) 291-5944
Home:   Phone (604) 689-9510


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/mobglob-discuss/attachments/20031120/88c8f4f6/attachment.html>