Rush
to free-for-all
By
PAUL GRAY, December 1, 2003, The Herald Sun,
OH
for the days of being a deputy sheriff. According to the Howard Government,
it is now a matter of crucial importance to our nation that we bend
over backwards and let ourselves be penetrated, even more deeply, by
the forces of global capitalism.
And
if any Australian objects -- tough. In the world of global politics,
we're less important than Mexicans, after all.
This
is the hidden message behind the Government's push to wrap up a free
trade deal with the US -- without public debate.
It's
a scandal even worse than the war we didn't have to have with Iraq,
and the Australian prisoners our Government won't defend at Guantanamo
Bay.
Once
again, the Howard Government is merrily leading us towards lackey-like
status. If a free trade deal is signed by Christmas, as the Government
unctuously hopes, we'll be officially lower than the butler, in the
relationship with our great and powerful mate.
The
objection here is not to a free trade agreement as such. The problem
is the haste with which this agreement is being concluded.
Important
details must be brought before the public, discussed and -- if the Labor
Party can tear itself away from internal brawling for a moment -- debated
vigorously in Parliament.
That's
not the Government's way, though.
Trade
Minister Mark Vaile lists a US Free Trade Agreement as a top priority
before the end of the year.
In
fact, the only reason being given for pushing through this free trade
deal by Christmas is the busy US Congressional timetable.
Next
year is a presidential election year, which means the US Congress has
a loaded schedule.
So
if our Government's ink isn't dry on the signature for a deal quickly,
it won't make it to Capitol Hill, Washington, before 2005. Reasonable
Australians will ask -- so what?
There
are strong reasons for waiting -- and you can find many of them in The
Big Chill, a new report co-authored by Liberty Victoria and the Catholic
Commission for Justice, Development and Peace.
The
key issue is sovereignty.
State
and federal governments -- the elected representatives of the people
-- could be intimidated and sued for billions of dollars by foreign
investors objecting to our laws because they interfere with "their"
profits.
It's
not the US Government that's the big risk here.
It's
private companies which owe no allegiance to any nation or state, using
the legal loopholes in formal free trade treaties to challenge a government's
right to make laws as it sees fit.
Governments
as diverse as Canada's (a national government) and California's (a US
state government) have suffered from this, after the signing of the
North American Free Trade Agreement.
TOXIC
chemicals and environmental pollution are involved.
In
several cases, big chemical companies have challenged government bans
on carcinogens and toxic wastes, exploiting the terms of the free trade
agreement.
Who
decides on these challenges launched against governments by private
interests? The blunt answer is: tribunals.
Tribunals
every bit as unbiased as that notorious Libyan-chaired UN Human Rights
Committee.
Often they're made up of people with vested interests in the corporate
sector.
How
unbiased is that?
"Decisions
by courts (in a democratic nation) should not be reviewable by essentially
secretive and unaccountable tribunals," The Big Chill warns.
The
huge wave of litigation brought by companies against Canada ($11,566
billion), Mexico ($501.1 million) and the US ($16,198 billion) is worth
noting. The report calls this litigation an "offensive weapon"
used by companies against sovereign states.
And
sovereign states, remember, are us -- the people. Not just employees
of a company or cardholders in a club.
The
Howard Government has made this kind of move before.
Remember
the so-called MAI -- the international trade treaty that the Government
wanted us to sign in 1998 to "benefit" Australian trade interests?
I
said that was a sell-out of sovereignty too and then-assistant treasurer
Rod Kemp and several pro-treaty critics took me to task.
Then
months later, the MAI itself was dropped -- after protests about its
negative impact on sovereignty, in nations around the world.
How
odd.
We
may well need a US-Australia free trade agreement. But if so, I'd like
to see it debated first, by the public at large.
paulgray@skynet.net.au