|
|
|
|
||
|
ENVIRONMENT POLICY 100: GLOBALIZATION MADE THE FEDS DO IT!
(This article is from the May 16-31/2000 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)
PEOPLE AND NATURE BEFORE PROFITS Column by Bill Morris
THE SCENES FROM Seattle were dramatic. Not only the pictures of battles in the streets but the diversity of protesters and issues sharing those streets. But many people do not fully appreciate how global trade policy and environmental protection are related. Here's a quick primer on this connection.
It will be no surprise to PV readers that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had a wide-reaching impact on all areas of life. Following the failed MAI negotiations, more Canadians waking up to the implications of trade agreements taking place under the World Trade Organization (WTO).
All these international negotiations have the goal of striking down "barriers" to trade in services, good and investments. Environmental regulations, regarding pesticides, food safety, bio-technology and eco-system protection, are seen as non-tariff barriers to trade. NAFTA and the WTO use the provisions of the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) chapters to establish standards.
Through the use of trade sanctions these agreements seek to modify a national government's activities. For example, responding to an American complaint, the WTO ruled that Canada's magazine advertising policies contravened the TBT, and moved to introduce trade sanctions against Canadian exports. The Minister of Heritage argued that the policy protected Canadian culture, and should therefore be exempt, but the panel still ruled against Canada.
The single most important principle in these trade agreements is that of Most-Favoured Nation Treatment. Governments must treat "like" products from member countries equally regardless of the environmental, or labour, conditions entailed in that production.
Here we find the principal weapon used against any forms of progressive environmental policy. First, the Canadian government is unable to use trade measures to influence foreign industries that are polluting or producing hazardous materials (or with poor human rights records). Second, Canadian industries use the fact that they are competing with transnational corporations, located in countries lacking the most basic environmental protections, to force the governments to weaken environmental protections.
To calm citizen concerns, the federal government and various corporate apologists refer to Article XX of the WTO regime as a means to act in the public interest. Article XX "permits" countries to maintain or introduce standards necessary for the protection of "human, animal or plant life or health" and the "conservation of exhaustible resources." But, to quote a brief prepared by the Canadian Environmental Law Association:
"With the implementation of the expanded trade law regime following the establishment of the WTO, an increased number of trade disputes have arisen in which environmental or health standards have been an issue. In every case, the domestic standard that was at issue has been found incompatible with GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) or the FTA leading to a requirement that it be rescinded."
The fact is that the GATT/WTO negotiations have invariably led to the elimination of government options to regulate! It is doubtful that this pattern will reverse in the near future.
It is important to remember that the Canadian government is no mere pawn to the dictates of global capitalism. Ottawa's track record in both the Committee on Trade and the Environment and the Review of Technical Barriers to Trade has been abysmal. In two recent cases, Canada successfully challenged the right of European countries to ban beef with hormone residues, and is attempting to force France to accept Canadian asbestos. Repeatedly the Canadian government has shown a complete disregard for the legitimate health concerns of foreign peoples.
For all these reasons it is important to oppose the WTO and other international free trade agreements.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
