27 April 2001

Contents:

19,000 people demonstrated on April 5 t h and 6 t h against the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement in Buenos Aires, Argentina, when thirty-four Trade Ministers met to discuss the proposal to extend the North American Free trade Agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico to other Latin American countries.

7000 people participated in a demonstration on the 5 t h of April organised by the official labour union in Argentina, (CGT). Besides the Argentine union, representatives from unions in Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, USA, and Canada were also present.

On the following day, around 12000 people marched from the Congress to the hotel where the trade ministerial meeting was taking place. The broad spectrum of organisations and individuals included members of the CTA (Union of Argentinian Workers), CUT Brazil (Trade Union Centre of Brazil), union members from Uruguay, the Director of Le Monde Diplomatique and Head of ATTAC, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Mr. Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, Emir Sader, academics, and deputies of the Argentine Congress.

The slogan of the protestors was "No to the FTAA. Another America is possible", following in many ways the idea of the World Social Forum held in Porto Alegre in January 2001 ("Another world is possible").

"Why are we against the FTAA? FTAA means Free Trade Area of the Americas, and it is a proposal by the US government to the Latin American nations. ‘Free trade’ has been applied to our countries to ruin national economies, generating external debt, massive unemployment, flexible labour laws, and a decrease in salaries. This same philosophy is behind the FTAA", was written in a pamphlet distributed among the people.

"We are here to repudiate the US proposal that does not address the problems of the people in South America and it aims towards crude and wild capitalism", said Rodolfo Daer, head of the CGT.

"The United States talks about freeing up the markets but they are the most protectionist. They pay 97.3 million dollars per year in subsidies to their farmers. Because of this they don’t buy our agricultural products and we have so much unemployment", another member of the Argentine union said.

The head of the CUT, Brazilian Joao Felicio, closed the demonstration with a vibrant speech, "We know that governments do not like us. We do not like them either". Felicio repudiated the attitude of the Argentine government which closed its borders with Brazil and Uruguay as a way to obstruct the entry of many protestors into the country.

"The FTAA represents an eternal dictatorship", he added. Felicio also invited the public to participate in the II World Social Forum in Porto Alegre because "it is a space of resistance and it symbolises a new political representation to end 500 years of submission".

At the end of the speeches Victor De Gennaro (Head of CTA, Argentina) waved the Brazilian flag and Joao Felicio from CUT, did the same with the Argentine flag.

The protests in Buenos Aires showed that important sectors of Latin American society disagree with the US proposal, backed by US multinational companies, to extend throughout the whole continent the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which have already had a devastating effect on the Mexican economy.

People said "NO" to the removal of trade barriers in the Americas because it would give more power to the strongest countries and companies, and it would debilitate poor countries further.

People in the Americas want to decide their own future and work out fairer alternatives.

Top of page

2. Reports from Quebec: 60,000 protest while leaked tape reveals Latin American government concerns

Condensed from reports by Judy Rebick www.rabble.ca.

Several thousand people from North and South America attended the Peoples’ Summit on April 17-20, organised by coalition of unions and non-governmental organizations from across the Americas. The conference presented alternative strategies to the FTAA . There were Forums on Women, Agriculture, Indigenous Struggles, Parliamentary Democracy, Education, the State and Wealth Redistribution, Communications, Human Rights, the Labor movement, and the Environment which received good coverage in the local press.

The Peoples’ summit culminated in a colorful but peaceful demonstration of 60,000 people on April 21 which kept away from the security fence. The organizers felt was too dangerous to take such a large march into the tiny streets of the old city near the fence.

However confrontations with smaller groups of protesters occurred near the fence. According to André Paradis, executive director of Quebec's civil liberties union, violence escalated on Saturday primarily because of police tactics. He told a press conference on Sunday that police escalated their tactics in three ways: First, they used tear gas from the moment of confrontation. Second, they used more aggressive weapons - such as water canons and plastic bullets. And third, they left the perimeter and chased protesters into a residential area, where some property damage occurred for the first time in 48 hours of protest.

Plastic bullets injured several people - including one woman who was hit in the throat. She required an emergency tracheotomy.

According to the union - which had thirty observers on the ground – only 5 per cent of the protesters confronting police were violent. "Most of the demonstrators in the Upper Town [near the perimeter] were singing and dancing and peaceful," said spokesperson Sam Boske.

Over the course of the day, a growing number of trade unionists and others like the Council of Canadians joined the direct action to support the youth who were battling police.

A full day before the planned demonstration, activist leader Jaggi Singh was snatched from the street by five plainclothes police officers. His bail hearing was not scheduled until the following Wednesday.

As of Sunday morning, 450 people had been arrested. People were held in jail, denied the right to contact their lawyers or their families, and without food, reported Quebec's civil liberties union.

Both male and female accused were stripped and left naked in front of others. These abuses were corrected after the civil liberties union intervened.

I never thought I'd be writing this article, surely not in Canada. There aren't many people in this country who view free trade as positively as I do. As industry minister in the Mulroney government, I participated in the 1985 Shamrock Summit that set the stage for our trade agreement with the United States. I was even responsible for replacing the Foreign Investment Review Agency with Investment Canada, a welcome mat for our partners to the South. There also aren't many people who view the maintenance of law and order as a higher priority than I do.

But this past weekend, I was shocked by events in Quebec City. Shocked by what I saw, and stunned by what my wife, Noreen, and I personally experienced. I believe Canada is right to view free trade as a model for democratic development in every corner of our hemisphere, and I was delighted to see us host the Summit of the Americas. But our government is dead wrong to behave in a manner that suggests we have forgotten what democracy is all about.

Noreen and I arrived in Quebec City last Friday at about 5 p.m. We had heard about the so-called security fence and wanted to see it firsthand, to walk along beside it. My first view of the fence was in front of the Château Frontenac. It brought back memories of many happy visits to that hotel. But, this weekend, I could not enter: The hotel was inside the fence, I was outside. As we walked around the perimeter, a 40-year-old chap passed us, and asked: "Where is your gas mask?" I asked what he meant. He said: "There is gas farther on -- watch out." We continued until we saw our first contingent of riot-geared police lined up three deep behind a closed gate. They were an intimidating sight -- in battle dress, with helmets, masks, shields and assorted elaborate weapons. I was glad, this time, that they were inside the fence and we were outside.

Farther on, just before we got to Dufferin Street, there were perhaps 50 people -- protesters, it turned out -- who were standing or sitting on a small side road. At the end of the road, we saw a much larger group of riot police standing shoulder-to-shoulder, several rows deep. The road was well away from the security fence. In fact, the fence was nowhere in sight.

I spoke with many of the people in the street, asked them why they had gathered, why they opposed the free trade proposals. It was a lively but friendly exchange. We were interrupted as the police down the road began an eerie drumming, rattling their riot sticks against their shields.

Slowly, in unison, one six-inch step at a time, they began marching toward us. Noreen and I moved to the side of the street, as the protesters remained stationary. Some formed V signs with their fingers. To my horror, the police then fired tear gas canisters directly at those sitting or standing on the road. As clouds of gas began to spread, Noreen and I felt our eyes sting and our throats bake. We pulled whatever clothing we could across our mouths. One young woman, who had been among the protesters, offered us some vinegar. "What's that for?" I asked. "It takes away the sting," she said. And it did help. The police, however, kept advancing. One large policeman with the number 5905 on his helmet, pressed right against me and ordered me to get behind a railing. "I haven't done anything," I protested. "Why?" He simply replied: "Get behind the rail." Then he added, "and get down." I did so. I shook my head. I never thought I would ever see this kind of police-state tactic in Canada.

What we witnessed that night was mild compared to events the next afternoon. This time, we walked along the fence until we reached the gate at René Lévesque Boulevard, where a great crowd had gathered that included TV cameras and reporters. I was asked for an interview by a CBC crew but, before we could begin, dozens of tear gas canisters were fired, water cannons were sprayed and rubber bullets began to hit people nearby. Three times, I felt could not breathe, my eyes were sore and all I could do was run. In the bedlam, my wife and I were separated for almost three hours. She said she had almost passed out from the gassing.

We lost something else, besides each other, last weekend in Quebec: our innocence. This government, and some reporters, like to brand the Quebec City demonstrators as "hooligans." That is not fair. I talked to dozens of them, mostly university students, aged about 20. They came to Quebec, not to have "a good time," as some suggest, but to express their well-thought-out views on a subject that is important to them, to all of us. I may not have agreed with their position, but I sure believe in their right to express it. The police had no cause to violently suppress it. Some will say that a handful of demonstrators got out of hand and forced the police to take collective action. I can't agree. The police action in Quebec City, under orders from our government, was a provocation itself -- an assault on all our freedoms.

Quebec (CP) - The prying lenses and sharp pencils of the press had been shooed out of the meeting hall. Prime Minister Jean Chretien assured his fellow summit leaders their discussion was now closed and they could let their hair down. Many did. But none of them noticed that a translated feed of their vigorous discussion was still flowing out of the room.

But an alert producer with Radio-Canada did take notice and scrambled to run an audio tape of the private discussions held Saturday. Some of what was recorded would have cheered those on the streets and may have chagrined George W. Bush. The U.S. president could take comfort that his chivalry was noted by the only woman head of state around the table. "I have to say that the speakers make excellent speeches but they only speak of `Mr. presidents,'" said Panamanian President Mireya Elisa Moscoso. "There's a woman president here, which I'm sure will only be a short-term exception. I'd like to thank President Bush for pointing this (the predominantly male presence) out to me during the break." No TV cameras were rolling to reveal if Bush blushed.

But much of the rest of the session must have been dreary for the U.S. president. One after one, leaders of smaller or poorer countries lined up to indirectly question whether his vision of unbridled capitalism is the best way to nurture nascent democracies. Bush had told his counterparts during the televised session that democracy linked to markets was the best weapon against tyranny. But, once the cameras left and the doors were closed to reporters, other leaders wondered how their creaking and vulnerable economies could possibly wield such a weapon. Others stated baldly that they needed to know how much money countries like Canada and the United States would be willing to pay to help them make the transition. "The most powerful, I insist, cannot avoid the obligation of solidarity with those less favoured," said Paraguayan President Luis Angel Gonzalez. That was code for a plea for cash before Paraguay can prepare to meet the 2005 deadline set for a negotiated deal on a Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Others asked larger countries to treat them as equals, but not before they were given preferential treatment. "Don't poke sticks into our spokes," said Guatemalan president Alfonso Portillo, thumping on his desk for emphasis. "The small economies are not the same as the big economies. Just to become the equals of the big brothers, we will need to be treated accordingly." Portillo's solution included a promise from larger countries not to demand the lowest market prices for commodities from smaller countries. How that perspective might fit into the framework of a hemispheric free-trade pact remained a mystery.

Hugo Chavez, the firebrand president of Venezuela, scoffed at the notion of democracy as currently constructed in Latin America. "If the democracy doesn’t provide land, if it’s concentrated in the hands of two per cent of the population, we can’t speak of democracy," Chavez said.

There was little surprise on Sunday when the final declaration from summit leaders reaffirming their commitment to a hemispheric free-trade pact included an asterisk that represented Chavez’s dissent.

The format of the meeting didn’t allow for debate or discussion, so there was no noted reaction from Bush.

White House officials were said to be unhappy that a technical lapse threw open what was supposed to be a closed-door session.

Investor rights in leaked FTAA text (Bridges Weekly Trade digest, Vol 5 no.15, April 24)

A draft FTAA text on investment leaked to the public on 19 April indicates that the forthcoming trade agreement may contain strong investor-rights language. Although the text appears entirely in brackets – denoting specific language yet to be finalised – it confirms many civil society groups’ fears that the FTAA investment provisions will closely resemble those found in NAFTA’s Chapter 11.

NAFTA’s investor-state Chapter has been used in several instances by foreign investors to challenge domestic regulation in the three NAFTA parties, including environmental regulation (see BRIDGES Weekly, 20 February 2001, http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/inbrief.20-02-01.htm).Concerns that a finalised FTAA will generate a similar result have led many non-governmental organisations within the region to demand that governments rethink the logic behind the investment provision. According to Canada-based International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Senior Advisor Aaron Cosbey, "Certainly we strive for increased investment and economic growth, but we also want environmental integrity, human health and safety and scores of other non-economic goals. The problem with the Chapter 11 cases to date is the [NAFTA] tribunals have been unable to find that kind of balance. They’ve promoted increased investment, but with terrible consequences for the environment."

Governments plan to start talks on removing regional trade barriers in May next year and to conclude an FTAA agreement by January 2005. The accord would come into force by the end of that year. The free trade area would be the world’s largest trade grouping, with 800m people and a third of world economic output. The next Americas Summit will take place in Argentina.

Top of page

The drug industry's court case against the South African Government will go down in history as a great corporate public relations disaster. The hard lesson that the big pharmaceutical companies have been taught in South Africa, where they have been forced to retreat from their attempt to stop the country importing cheap AIDS drugs, is that there can be no global marketplace without a world sense of right and wrong.

However much the industry insisted that the cost of patented drugs was not the main problem for African governments, the public perception was that the companies were more interested in protecting their intellectual property rights than in the health crisis in the continent. South Africa, with the world's highest number of AIDS sufferers, was precisely the wrong country at which to aim its campaign to prevent poor states buying cheaper generic copies of patented drugs. Pretoria was prepared to stand by its right under international trade rules to import generic drugs during a national health emergency. Now, belatedly, the companies have realised the damage the case has done to their public image.

Under last night's settlement, Pretoria will clarify its intention to interpret its 1997 Medicines Act under World Trade Organisation rules. But it will not rewrite the law, as the companies had wanted. The companies argued that the act allowed Pretoria to override patents at will. The government said it only planned to use the act in the spirit of the WTO's patent rules, which allow intellectual property rights to be overriden in exceptional circumstances. Campaigners argued that the AIDS crisis was an emergency as defined in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The decision of the 39 drugs firms involved to halt the case is a big defeat for US and European corporate lobbyists, in the agricultural as well as the pharmaceutical sectors. They thought it possible to exploit the rules for world trade in such a way as to make consumers dependent for redress on a handful of easily influenced regulators. International public opinion and a worldwide web of activists, forces which the corporations had not counted on, appear to have made them change their minds this time.

Now attention switches to a more difficult arena: the case being brought by the US Government, backed by the American Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, against Brazil, which makes cheap copies of patented AIDS drugs. They say that Brazil is flouting TRIPS. The case will go before the nearest thing to a world court with teeth - the WTO in Geneva. Campaigners cite Brazil as an example of how a relatively poor country can treat AIDS if it has access to cheaper generic drugs. AIDS deaths have halved since the government began providing cut-price treatment.

Merck and Pfizer, the companies leading the campaign against Brazil's generics industry, must be re-evaluating their strategy. But it will be harder for big drugs companies to admit defeat on this one. South Africa's HIV problem, its tragic recent history and the saintly figure of Nelson Mandela made the companies' case look sleazy. Plus, it is a relatively small market. Brazil is different. Poor as it is, it is much richer than sub-Saharan Africa; it is a genuine potential market for the drugs giants. More significantly for the world, if the TRIPS tribunal backs Brazil, it will establish the principle that poor countries can override patent rules in the interests of public health.

Ominously for the drugs companies and their shareholders, the South African case and the coming showdown in Geneva raise questions about big drugs companies' lack of financial transparency. Attention is now focusing on the lack of information about how much they spend on research; their huge profits; their dependence for many breakthroughs on publicly funded laboratories; the huge sums spent on marketing; and the disproportionate amount spent on developing drugs for lifestyle problems such as obesity in the developed world.

Top of page

5. NSW activist group on trade: are you interested?

May Day is the traditional day of solidarity for the rights of workers around the world.

Events: Global Justice Coalition Rally, 1pm, Tuesday May 1, Cnr Martin Place and Philip St, City.
Themes include fair trade and workers compensation rights.

May Day March assembles 11am Sunday May 6, Archibald Fountain, Hyde Park.

Top of page

7. Globalisation forum at Byron Bay, May 3, June 2 - 3

May 3, 7 pm, Byron Surf Club; Helena Norberg Hodge of the International Forum on Globalisation, E. F. Shumacher College and Editor of the Ecologist Magazine, will speak on Renewal and Resistance. $10.

June 2 and 3 at Byron Surf Club; 9 to 5 daily, 2 day workshop on Globalisation 9.30 till late! with Dr Liz Elliott, Mr Jeremy Lee and others; featuring glorious beach views, frisbee on the beach, dance and music at night, and lots of time for debate and political strategy. $40/ also concession for helpers. Contact catcher@norex.com.au