| A Reflection on
Free Trade Agreements
With the development of modern communications, the lives of people
have been revolutionized. Today you can get up in Canada, eat
lunch in Bogota and dinner in Chile (not counting the time that
you waste in the airports). The majority of people in the world
are able to know what’s going on in other parts of the world
(at least that which is considered newsworthy by the media). We
all know that Pope John Paul II continues to be in bad health.
We hear daily of the tremendous effort that President Bush is
making in order to justify the difficult circumstances in Iraq.
We’e shocked by the deaths of 83 protesters in La Paz, Bolivia.
We are aware that all countries must participate in regional and
world trade and that all countries must develop economically for
the well being of all people. I am particularly referring to those
persons who are not favored by the world economic situation. It
is useful and necessary to participate in trade in order to sell
our products and buy those we need. This can be regulated by trade
agreements.
But what are the objectives of the free trade agreements currently
under discussion? If free trade permits us to find new markets
at fair prices for our products—coffee, bananas, pineapples,
flowers—and using the profits from their sale permits us
to buy higher-quality medicines, telephones, cars, and computers,
the treaties wouldn’t be so bad. (By the way, high quality
computers are produced in Costa Rica, where Intel employs 950
people in a factory that produces computer processors. Other international
factories are also here. For example, I bought some good shirts
on sale at Sears when I was visiting the United States. When I
got back here, I saw the label said, “Made in Costa Rica”).
The problem with these particular free trade agreements is that
they are, as we say in Spanish, “like a competition between
a tethered donkey and a tiger,” in other words, free but
unequal.
When wealthy countries subsidize certain industries, this adds
to the problem. We end up on the losing end every time and we
wind up even poorer. The purpose of free trade agreements isn’t
to share the wealth of those who have better conditions for production
with those who do not, nor is it to improve the industry of those
countries that do not have good conditions. The purpose is to
increase profit, without considering the effect this may have
on the people of other countries. What is ironic is that a great
many of the people who manage large companies, both in rich and
poor countries, are people who attend church and give to charity.
However, they are part of the system. The system compels them
to constantly increase profits, and their jobs depend upon fulfilling
these expectations.
It is easy to destroy, and even easier to criticize. For example,
one person with a little knowledge can destroy a house, but it
takes a person with a lot of knowledge and a lot of time to rebuild
the same house. What am I proposing? That we sign free trade agreements
when the purpose is not to control the resources and the nations
that have those resources. That we sign treaties that are fair.
That the profits be shared even if the poor countries do not have
the strength to defend themselves at the negotiation table. We
don't want treaties that give us charity. What we need are treaties
that value the hours of work and effort of the people that produce
a sack of coffee in the same way that we value the people and
their work who build cars. The treaties should also permit the
free production of medicines. It not ethical to make money off
of the sickness and pain of our fellow beings.
The treaties themselves are not bad, but the intention that is
behind them is bad. The intentions that we see clearly are to
control the resources and enrich wealthy countries by taking the
work and wealth of the poor and their countries.
Sara and Guida Mahecha
The 2003 Mission Yearbook for Prayer and Study, p. 240
|
