Many environmentalists fear that the WTO promotes policies which enable corporations to escape national restrictions on business and environmental practices by calling such restrictions "trade barriers". For instance, one of my hero’s, the environmentalist and human rights activist Ken Sara-Wiwa, was slain by Abacha’s regime which was supported by Shell Oil. The argument goes something like – corporations such as ADM will now prop up similar horrid regimes (think Zimbabwe) and bypass the types of responsible environmental regulations forced on them by developed countries.
That’s a valid argument.
However, many environmentalists do see that cooperation fostered by international institutions is critical to effective environmental.
Ralph Nader maintains that the social protections which help protect workers and the poor in Europe and the United States will become eroded because workers in the emerging countries will not have these protections.
Malawe, a very poor nation, argues that free trade is a benefit for richer nations at the expense of poorer nations because tariff barriers are necessary for poor countries to develop their economies.
Other free trade foes are merely isolationists who fear that the U.S. will lose its ability to control its own destiny and economy.
Whenever I debate free trade with anyone, I try to determine which of the above camps that person belongs to; with the exception of the last foes – Mexico serves as a great example of the POSITIVE effect of free trade:
Real GDP has grown at 5.5 percent per year for 5 years, 3.8 percent per year since the ratification of NAFTA.
Urban unemployment rate that was 6 percent in 1992 now less than 4 percent.
Mexico's real exports will be more than three times as large as they were at the ratification of NAFTA
Share of GDP exports have grown from 10 to 17 percent.
And, perhaps most importantly, the PRE has been crushed: These changes have created a foundation for a far more stable political situation.
But the flip side is scary:
Strong human rights and property rights are feely trampled upon by regimes that see INCREASES in foreign investment!The only red flag a corporation would be wary of is nationalization of an industry.The introduction of foreign investment, does not, in my opinion, weaken a corrupt, authoritarian or despotic government, it often does the opposite; one danger of free trade (of which I’m an ardent but open-eyed supporter) IS the strengthening of despicable regimes. Cases in point:
Freedom Gold, a corporation founded and ran by (get this) Pat Robertson, gave vast sums ($15 million according to Sizemore) to Liberian President Charles Taylor, who is accused by human rights groups of vast atrocities. The Liberian government reportedly received 10% equity, with options to purchase at least 15% of shares.
Exxon/Mobil partnered with the Equatorial Guinea government, which is a democracy in name only and has an appalling human rights record; the government there now has money to deal with a surge in ethnic tension and violence, but most its citizens lack running water and electricity. Reportedly, the only new construction to be found there is housing for the President, his relatives and political allies.
Exxon/Mobil also spent a few billions in Chad and Cameroon (Cameroon is widely regarded as one of the most corrupt countries on earth), which will be the largest private investment project in Africa for the next five years, with public funds being used in a variety of ways to insure the safety of private investment in a climate of violence and corruption.
I won’t even get into the environmental consequences of the above operations, but suffice it to say that no environmental standards are forced upon these corporations.
(One last sidebar: I was going to use the inaccurate term “banana republic”, but bananas may be extinct soon - http://millennium-debate.org/tel16jan03.htm)
