The FTAA is a proposal promoted by Washington for a U.S.-dominated trade bloc. The U.S. rulers seek to use such a pact to beat down trade and investment barriers of semicolonial countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, while strengthening their edge over Washington’s European imperialist rivals.

Since the first such summit was held in Miami in 1994, the one government in the Americas that has been excluded is Cuba, which has vigorously campaigned against the FTAA, arguing that it will be used to increase the plunder of Latin America by U.S. capitalists.

In Miami, Washington had pushed for the main priorities of the U.S. employers: lowering tariffs on manufactured U.S. goods exported to Latin America and the Caribbean, recognizing and enforcing U.S. patents, and more protections for U.S. investment. But many governments, especially Brazil, the most developed semicolonial country in Latin America, chafed at Washington’s plan.

The Brazilian government wanted Washington to end subsidies to U.S. agricultural products and lower tariffs on others like oranges and sugar. The two biggest producers of orange juice in the world are the United States and Brazil. High tariffs on the import of oranges and concentrate from Brazil insure that U.S. capitalist growers have a big competitive advantage within the United States.

Washington’s position was that the question of agricultural subsidies and tariffs should be taken up in the World Trade Organization not the FTAA.

U.S. trade negotiator Robert B. Zoellick wrote in a column in the Wall Street Journal, “We need action by the two biggest subsidizers, Europe and Japan. We will not ‘unilaterally disarm’ in the FTAA.” In other words, FTAA or no FTAA, Washington does not plan to end subsidies to U.S. sugar companies or other agribusiness as a trade weapon against its rivals. But at the same time, Zoellick said, the U.S. government is pushing for Latin American and Caribbean nations to “buy more from us.”

Even without the FTAA the U.S. government has pushed for eliminating tariffs on its goods. For example, one of the conditions Washington imposed on Haiti in 1994 was the elimination of tariffs on rice and chicken. As a result, Haiti’s poultry industry was virtually wiped out, as was rice growing. Now Haiti imports chicken and rice from the United States.

The draft agreement “allows an individual country to ignore the strictures of the FTAA that it doesn’t like,” the Miami Herald reported. At the same time it “sets a deadline of Sept. 30, 2004, to finalize negotiations on tariffs, but doesn’t give dates for dealing with any other issues under the FTAA’s guidance.”

Unable to reach agreement on any real changes at the FTAA talks in Miami, U.S. officials announced that Washington would pursue bilateral talks to press its priorities with individual governments.

Business groups in the United States that backed Washington’s position viewed the draft accord as the best that could be achieved at the moment, with the goal of continuing to press for more concessions. ‘‘Today’s decision has avoided having the door slam shut and gives us a chance for what can still be a very high quality agreement,’’ said Frank Vargo, vice president for international economic affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers.
 
Protectionist protests
Demonstrations against the FTAA were held throughout the Miami summit, drawing thousands of protesters from around the country, as well as delegations from some Latin American countries. The union officials and other U.S.-based forces, however, largely opposed the trade pact from a protectionist standpoint.

On November 19 a “People’s Gala” against the FTAA was attended by several thousand people. Among the trade union contingents there were Teamsters; teachers; members of UNITE from Eden, North Carolina, who worked at the Pillowtex textile company there until it closed earlier this year; and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees union. Also participating were supporters of the Green Party, Communist Party USA, and several anarchist groups. One of the largest organizations present was the Steelworkers union, with members at the protests from around the country. Many high school and college students from the Miami area were also present.

The largest anti-FTAA protest was organized by the AFL-CIO the next day with a “Save American Jobs” theme. The action drew several thousand people.

Union officials peddled an anti-Bush theme, despite the fact that the FTAA is a bipartisan initiative that was launched by the Clinton administration in 1994. AFL-CIO president John Sweeney told the crowd the union federation’s strategy is “to radically rewrite the Bush Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement, or stop it cold.”

‘‘Since the Bush regime took power, we’ve lost 3 million jobs, 2.5 million of them in manufacturing,’’ Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO said. “It’s time, it’s time, it’s way past time for George W. Bush to go down.”  
 
Cop violence
In the weeks leading up to the protests, Miami city officials violence-baited the anti-FTAA protesters. During the summit, more than 2,500 cops, many in riot gear, were deployed in downtown Miami, including cops from more than 40 local, state, and federal police agencies. Checkpoints were set up around the area.

The cops had pepper-spray balls, rubber bullets, and tear gas at the ready, along with armored personnel carriers and water cannons. It was announced that for weeks the police had practiced “crowd control” techniques. According to the Miami Herald, they also spied on the Internet communications of protesters.

Cops stationed outside the Bayside Amphitheater, where the AFL-CIO action started and ended, decided who was and wasn’t allowed into the rally. Thousands were turned away by the cops and forced to remain outside the amphitheater.

As the rally was ending, cops shot tear gas and rubber bullets at demonstrators who had moved toward the fence at the nearby Intercontinental Hotel where the FTAA ministerial meeting was taking place. Several demonstrators were beaten and dozens arrested, including many who had nothing to do with the action near the fence.

About 220 people were arrested by the end of the week of activity.

In some cases cops took the belongings, including backpacks and purses, of those they were arresting and just dumped the contents on the street and drove off with their prisoners.

Leo Gerard, international president of the Steelworkers union, protested the police conduct in a letter to Congress. “The obvious purpose of the repressive police presence in Miami was, at a minimum,” he said, “to intimidate us and limit the exercise of our rights. Phalanxes of police in riot gear stretched for blocks, as did police cars buttressed bumper to bumper.”

He said the $8.5 million in federal funding for Miami’s “security” was used for “homeland repression.”  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home