FTAA and Civil Society: Did Toronto Trade Talks Advance Participation?

Bruce A. Jay

Toronto’s Legacy

when viewed in light of the later tumultuous events in Seattle, the Civil Society Forum held at last November’s Toronto Trade Ministerial was a positive first step, signaling the growing awareness in official circles of civil society’s legitimate concerns over the negotiation and implementation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the whole Summit of the Americas process. As Berta Lujan, a member of the Mexican coalition RMALC who presented the Civil Society Forum’s documents to the trade ministers, later wrote, “In Toronto, the (Canadian) government facilitated the civil society meeting with the Ministers and demonstrated that it is possible to arrive at a process for a dialogue, which although still very limited, is the beginning of the democracy that we wish and need to achieve modernization.”

Nevertheless, at the Forum itself the cold rhetoric exchanged and lack of applause for those ambassadors who sought to respond to the presentations and questions by representatives of the Continental Social Alliance (ASC) highlighted a deep divide. The warm treatment of the Americas Business Forum (ABF) in the Toronto Trade Ministerial’s final declaration, and the lack of even a passing mention of the Civil Society Forum in that same document, seemed to bear out the continuing division. This glaring imbalance in the final official public declaration, plus the lack of concrete progress on labor unions’ and NGOs’ minimal demands for access and transparency, immediately brought internal pressures in the Alliance for condemnation of the FTAA negotiations to accompany similar campaigns against the WTO and the IMF. The Alliance was left grappling uncomfortably with the choice between continued engagement or outright opposition. While the preponderant view seems to favor continued FTAA engagement, the energy expended in the proactive drive to participate in the integration process could quickly convert itself into a negative force, especially given the sparse results of the negotiations to date.

The Continental Social Alliance
Labor unions, community-based organizations and NGOs in the Americas have found common cause in recent years as they cope with the trade liberalization process. Since 1998, the groups have devoted much energy to having the social dimension included in the FTAA negotiation agenda. Their efforts trace back to a partnership that began at the “Our America” conference, which paralleled the 1997 Belo Horizonte Trade Ministerial, and was more formally articulated as the Continental Social Alliance (ASC) at the April 1998 People’s Summit in Santiago, Chile. It was in the name of this Alliance that labor and civil society leaders formally presented reports on key social concerns to a large group of the hemisphere’s ministers and trade representatives at the November 1999 Toronto Trade Ministerial. While the desired collective impact on the FTAA is still elusive, evident progress has been achieved in the maturing relations between national networks linking North and South, unions and NGOs. This positive and constructive force contrasts starkly with the tenuous temporary alliance that brought many NGOs and unions together in Seattle in a successful effort to block progress on the WTO Millennium Round.

Who Came to Toronto?
Several hundred civil society and union organizations from all over the Western Hemisphere were represented in the ASC’s Civil Society Forum in Toronto, despite the looming shadow of the impending World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle later that month. Most of these delegates were coordinated through the ASC’s components, national or regional networks or coalitions (redes in Spanish). The delegates developed a series of documents drawing on the Continental Social Alliance’s “Alternatives for the Americas” platform, the basis of a regionwide campaign to promote alternatives to neoliberal policies. The documents were reviewed and revised in Toronto to ensure consensus among the delegates. On November 3, the Civil Society Forum presented the results to a group that included 15 ministers of trade and foreign affairs, other national governmental representatives, and the director of the United Nations Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Two key regional powers, Brazil and Mexico, chose not to send their representatives.

The serious and responsible conduct of ACS’s Toronto activities belied frequent criticism of union and civil society participation in the FTAA negotiations. Some national authorities, including those of Mexico, Peru and Colombia, continue to reject civil society participation in the FTAA in any form, contending that the negotiations must remain a government to government concern. The Civil Society Forum showed the international trade community that the Alliance is a legitimate composite of national networks now flourishing in Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Peru and, to some extent, Central America, in addition to Canada and the United States. The Alliance’s activities and strength come from its national redes, and the essential commitment of ACS members is to broaden and expand these civil society coalitions, incorporating other countries and cementing the bonds between mass-based organizations such as unions and NGOs in each. In fact, the FTAA hard-liners’ failure to recognize the legitimacy of civil society participation and their resistance to the social dimension of trade have been the catalysts in the growing cohesion of civil society at the national and hemispheric levels.

Engage or Enrage: Post-Seattle
The conventional wisdom post-Seattle is that rejectionism is outstripping the voices of reform. One of the misguided myths spawned on the streets of Seattle is the assertion by purported progressives that: “We can stop this.” In a recent speech (1/14/00) at Florida Atlantic University, Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, formerly of the Preamble Center and syndicated columnist for the Knight-Ridder Group, called himself a reformist. Yet, in his remarks about post-Seattle strategies Weisbrot concentrated on the demonstrations being planned for the April 2000 IMF/World Bank meetings and the campaign to boycott World Bank bonds (see the campaign website at: www.cepr.net). Meanwhile, the U.S. union movement continues to push vigorously for engagement. AFL-CIO Associate Director for Public Policy Thea Lee made an impassioned presentation in favor of engagement at a December 16, 1999 New America Foundation workshop. Her remarks were reported on the foundation’s website at www.newamerica.net/frameprograms.htm.

An additional positive sign is the commitment by the Academic Consortium to Follow the FTAA Negotiations—formed during a recent international workshop at Florida International University’s Center for Labor Research and Studies—to help the Alliance and its networks prepare for future trade meetings and the Quebec Summit. Yet, information and research alone will not be sufficient. If those civil society groups actively lobbying the FTAA negotiations cannot show some results to their constituencies, the Alliance’s cohesion could be further strained or its positions radicalized. Those who want the FTAA process to take civil society concerns into account can only hope that the Toronto Forums will emerge as a significant step toward this end. The growing understanding and mutual support glimpsed at the meetings raise the prospect of real progress in the goals and spirit of the Summit of the Americas process.

While Toronto marked an auspicious step forward in making civil society a factor in sustainable development and democratic change, these parallel civil society meetings may be ending. In its post-Toronto considerations, the Brazilian civil society delegation (Rêde Brasileira para a Integração dos Povos, or REBRIP) stated that the Civil Society/Labor Forums provide governments with an appearance of transparency that simply does not exist. With no access and no transparency yet achieved in the FTAA, despite the ACS efforts, what might replace these carefully organized Forums? The Seattle experience was one painful example. Other possible scenarios will be highlighted in future commentaries and analysis.

For more information on the Continental Social Alliance, see the Common Frontiers website (www.web.net/~comfront) and the Alliance’s “Alternatives Document” at www.igc.org/dgap/art.