| Search: |
Latin America Working Group (LAWG) Letter to Congress
Opposing Fast Track/Trade Promotion Authority Dear Member of Congress, As religious, human rights, public policy and grassroots organizations with global relationships and concerns, we are the first to affirm the values of interdependency and exchange among all peoples. International trade has an important place in an interdependent world. We do not cherish isolationism; we celebrate global ties. The serious questions we raise regarding the fast track/Trade Promotion Authority proposals now before Congress concern the character and quality of global economic relationships, not whether we should forge them. Both here and abroad, global economic activity should advance the common good and strengthen, not undermine, local communities and families. Major trade negotiations should include broad-based citizen participation, and agreements should be ratified through genuinely democratic processes. Trade agreements should enhance the position of ordinary working people and the most vulnerable members of society, including women and people struggling to overcome poverty. They should protect and preserve the natural environment. Far from opposing trade agreements, we want to ensure that the rules created to govern international trade and investment reduce poverty, protect the integrity of the environment, and promote authentic human development and dignity throughout the world. To achieve these goals, the framework that governments establish for international trade and investment activities should be accountable to the people in our own country and the countries with which we trade. A thorough public debate is imperative. The truncated deliberations permitted under fast track are inadequate in view of the enormous impact of trade agreements such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas now being negotiated. We understand that foreign investors and transnational corporations desire clear, stable rules. But this interest must not take precedence over the needs of the broader society. We are particularly concerned that many of the "Trade Negotiating Objectives" outlined, for example, in the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001 (HR 2149) and other bills crafted along similar lines, promote a form of globalization that is already having tremendous negative impact on impoverished communities and the environment. We have observed that the current pattern of global trade and investment policies has increased poverty, inequality and environmental degradation in many communities throughout the world. We believe that fast track/Trade Promotion Authority in its current form will advance these same policies and accelerate their tragic and unjust results. In particular, we note the following: Trade Barriers: Mutually lowering trade barriers can help foster economic growth in some cases. However, if implemented rapidly or at an early stage in a country’s industrial development, opening the door to a flood of imports can destroy national and local factory and farm production and put many people out of work. Trade rules should recognize that affluent countries and developing countries do not share a level playing field. Developing countries, in particular, must be able to carry out any such reductions in trade barriers in ways that do not decrease employment, undermine the building of local and national productive capacity or frustrate national development goals. Legitimate food safety laws or public health and environmental regulations should not be vulnerable to challenge as trade barriers. Trade in Services: Basic services such as education, health care, water and other utilities should be affordable and available to all people, and not undermined by global trade and investment rules. Governments should be able to provide essential services and regulate others as necessary for the common good without reprisals from trading partners. Foreign Investment: Some forms of foreign investment can play a helpful role in sustainable human development. Such investment should generate high-quality jobs, sustainable production and economic stability. Governments should have the right to orient investment in a manner consistent with national development goals. The elimination of performance requirements and of exceptions to national treatment are of particular concern as they may increase the vulnerability of fragile economies. Worker Rights and Environment: A just and equitable international trading system will ensure that workers everywhere are able to exercise their basic rights as expressed in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms must be fair, reduce inequalities and encourage compliance. At the same time, promotion of these core labor rights must not be manipulated by more powerful and wealthy countries for protectionist purposes. In addition, global trade and investment rules should assist rather than undermine countries' ability to protect and sustainably develop their natural resources and environment. Intellectual Property: Nations should have the power to establish intellectual property rules that reflect their specific social, cultural and economic contexts. Such rules must guarantee affordable access to essential drugs, protect biodiversity and indigenous knowledge, and safeguard traditional and small-holder farming communities. In addition, a number of religious and civil society organizations believe that life forms should be excluded from patentability. Trade in Agriculture: Creating new markets for U.S. agricultural products should not come at the expense of the livelihoods and food security of ordinary people in impoverished countries, nor of democratically determined development goals. The United States subsidizes and protects much of its own agricultural sector, while demanding that developing countries eliminate subsidies and open their markets to U.S. agribusiness. It is far more appropriate for developing countries to have the right to protect or exclude staple foods from trade agreements and to support their traditional and small-holder farmers and agricultural workers. We emphasize again our conviction that just trade and investment agreements are both desirable and possible. Unfortunately, the present fast track/Trade Promotion Authority proposals raise profound concerns about fairness and justice. Creating a moral and legal framework for trade agreements will require more time for public participation in a genuinely democratic civil discourse. For these reasons we oppose a congressional grant of fast track Trade Promotional Authority. Instead, we urge the President and Congress to facilitate a full public debate on proposed trade and investment agreements, and on the principles guiding U.S. negotiators in the international arena. Sincerely,
Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory
Rev. Eliezer Valentin-Castanon
J. Daryl Byler
Maureen Heffern Ponicki
Marc Rittle
Rev. Bob Edgar
Rev. John L. McCullough
Kathryn Wolford
Rev. Douglas B. Hunt
Marie Dennis
Kathy Thornton, RSM
Susan Thompson
Rev Séamus P. Finn OMI
Sr. Ann Oestreich
Maria Riley, O.P.
Larry J. Goodwin
Marie Clarke
Gary Cozette
Tim Atwater
Steve Bennett
Margie Swedish
Scott Wright
Jean Stokan
Karen Hansen-Kuhn
Sarah Anderson
Terry Collingsworth Friends of the Earth
Cam Duncan
John Iversen
Dick Kamp
Barbara Gerlach and Cristina Espinel
Patricia Gay Webb
Alice Speers & Rev. Chris Laing
Rita A. Clark
Larry Weiss
Jeff Winder
Mike Prokosch
Fran Ansley
Stephen Coats
Wes Callender
Please direct responses to this letter to: |
|
|
