|
| Volume 3, Issue 15 -- July 21, 2006 |
|
From the JPIC Office In the past month, Theresa and I have been attending Congressional hearings on both immigration and the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement. After each one, we have left feeling discouraged and frustrated. The imbalanced discussion raised the question, “Are these hearings meant to give an informed and varied perspective, or are they meant to confirm the already clear leanings of the members of Congress?” At the U.S.-Peru FTA hearings, all witnesses provided testimony in favor of the passage of the trade agreement. There was only one dissenting voice among the many panelists, a representative from the AFL-CIO speaking on behalf of American workers. I wondered how the voices of small-scale farmers (U.S. and Peruvian) and indigenous communities were to be heard. I wondered about Peruvians who will eventually have to migrate because they can no longer find jobs in their own country because farming and industry jobs will most likely be lost. And then it occurred to me that perhaps our members of Congress aren’t too concerned about how this FTA will impact Peruvians. After all, their constituents are in the United States. Sadly, many politicians, although not all, do not consider how U.S. policies will affect our global neighbors. And in our ever increasingly globalized world, is it not our responsibility to act in a way that respects the dignity of all human beings and the integrity of creation? Pope John XXIII’s wrote in his letter Pacem in Terris, “The coexistence among nations is based on the same values that should guide relations among human beings: truth, justice, active solidarity, and freedom.”
Our current trade and immigration policies do not uphold these values. Despite what seems a very bleak picture, I did find hope and encouragement. While these hearings did little to raise the voices of the poor, I was comforted by the knowledge that Columban missionaries have accompanied and will continue to accompany the poor and marginalized in the face of free-trade agreements, poor immigration policy, dictators, environmental exploitation and many other injustices. This comfort, however, cannot diminish our efforts to work for justice. It should, instead, urge us to respond with the same loving solidarity. So in the end, this flurry of Congressional hearings has served to remind me not of what can’t be done, but rather the possibility of could be if we continue to act on behalf of our less fortunate sisters and brothers.
In peace,
Migration The most recent report in the Border Working Group summer Hill drop series is the trend of off-shoring and companies moving from Mexico to China and other countries where labor is even cheaper. This profits-driven movement creates vulnerability among workers and increases the global migrant worker trend. Mexican Maquiladoras to China Means More Migrants to the United States Under the market-liberalization model of economics, profits have become the bottom line, and workers have become as dispensable as the equipment found in the maquiladoras, Mexico’s factories. In the case of Mexico, the job loss associated with the unstable maquiladora sector has lead to increased migration in to the United States. Workers who lose their jobs in their home country today become migrant workers tomorrow. As it stands, this trade model is a lose-lose situation for workers as it not only pits workers in the United States with those in Mexico, China and other developing countries, but also increases international migration. When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented in 1994, one of its main selling points was that it would reduce Mexican migration to the United States due to an anticipated increase in employment opportunities for Mexicans in Mexico. In reality the opposite has happened, and after more than a decade, we see that undocumented migration flows have only increased. One area of the employment market that was expected to grow was the manufacturing subsector known as maquiladoras. Ahead of its time, the maquiladora program was created in the mid-1960s as a way to facilitate the tax and tariff-free movement of goods between the U.S. and Mexico. These assembly plants were established for export and concentrated on auto parts, electronics and apparel. However, after more than ten years of NAFTA, it is estimated that thirty percent of the jobs that were created in the maquiladora sector during the 1990s have disappeared. Many of these factories were relocated to lower-wage countries, particularly China. The trend known as off-shoring, when companies move to locations where they can employ workers at the lowest wage possible, has created an increasingly vulnerable environment for workers in all countries, including the United States and Mexico. For example, it costs $7.96 to manufacture and ship a pair of jeans from Mexico and $6.75 from China. 1 The off-shoring trend is exacerbated due to the 2005 phase out of the World Trade Organization’s textile quota system known as the Multi-Fiber Agreement. Hundreds of thousands of workers in the textile industry who already work in precarious conditions face an even more uncertain future as experts anticipate that most of the world’s clothing and textile industry will eventually move to China. 2 Unless we redefine our current trade policies, we can expect that migration to the United States and internationally will increase. The United States can no longer ignore the connections between trade liberalization and its affect on immigration to the United States and around the world. U.S. immigration policy must account for the economic push-pull factors that are driving migration, and be guided by human-centered principles.
Economic Justice The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement, GMOs & Patents The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everybody was asleep his enemy came, sowed darnel all among the wheat, and made off. When the new wheat sprouted and ripened, the darnel appeared as well. The owners’ servants went to him and said, ‘Sir, was it not good seed that you sowed in your field? If so, where does the darnel come from?’ ‘Some enemy has done this,’ he answered. And the servants said, ‘Do you want us to go and weed it out?’ But he said ‘No, because when you weed out the darnel, you might pull up the wheat with it. Let them both grow till the harvest; and at harvest time I shall say to the reapers: First, collect the darnel, tie it in bundles to be burnt, then gather the wheat into my barn.” —Matthew 12:24-30 The Andean region, as one of the most bio-diverse areas on Earth, is a source of boundless genetic, medicinal and agricultural wealth that corporations are anxious to exploit and patent as their own. The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which is currently being discussed in the U.S. Congress, places agribusiness patent rights above either the livelihoods of subsistence and indigenous farmers or the delicate balance of the ecosystem. Intellectual property rights provisions in trade agreements have generally served to further consolidate power into the hands of multinational corporations, undermining farmers’ right to decide which crops and farming techniques they will use. For instance, strict patent protections could make seed saving and sharing illegal. This traditional approach to agriculture would be considered a violation of the intellectual property rights of agribusiness corporations. Subsistence farmers have depended on saved seed for centuries, and many cannot afford the cost of purchasing new seed every year. If the U.S.-Peru FTA were become law, many Peruvian farming and indigenous communities will end up paying corporations for access to the same seeds that they have used for generations. While farmers cannot save seed for replanting, the agreement opens the way for large pharmaceutical and agribusiness corporations to pirate traditional agricultural and medicinal knowledge of seeds and plants, robbing communities of their cultural and ecological heritage. Sadly, the communities affected by this plundering are rarely compensated, although this is mandated by international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to which Peru is signatory. (The United States signed onto the CBD in 1993, but has failed to ratify it.) According to the CBD, communities have the right to know if their traditional knowledge is being used by outside parties and to share in any benefit derived from that knowledge. Unfortunately, the free-trade agreement’s provisions on intellectual property rights place corporations’ right to a profit above these concerns, undermining the shielding intent of the CBD. Closely connected to the issue of the patenting of seeds and plants are genetically modified organisms (GMOs), living organisms that have been manipulated and obtained by biochemical techniques, often achieved by the introduction of new DNA. Little research has been done on the potential long-term effects of GMOs, although many preliminary studies show worrisome trends for health, biodiversity and the environment. As such, GMOs put at risk rural communities that rely on a healthy and diverse environment for their livelihoods. Nevertheless, trade agreements, such as the U.S.-Peru FTA, have been used as a mechanism to force their introduction on countries that have resisted them or to prevent future legislation banning them. Indigenous farmers in Peru are particularly concerned about terminator technology being developed by Syngenta International for the potato, which has deep cultural and nutritive significance in Peru. This technology would prevent potatoes from sprouting unless a chemical manufactured by the patent holder was applied, placing the 3,000 varieties of potato in Peru at risk, and forcing subsistence farmers to buy expensive, and possibly harmful, agrochemicals. Under the terms of the trade agreement, should a U.S. company commercialize this technology, Peru would be unable to ban it without paying significant financial compensation to the company for ostensive lost profits. For more information and to read the letter written by indigenous leaders in Peru asking Syngenta to abandon this technology, please visit: http://www.banterminator.org/. Cultural and biological diversity are intricately linked, as often traditions are rooted in a community’s natural surroundings. As trade agreements turn control of natural resources over to multinational corporations out of the hands of local communities, their cultural heritage is threatened. With the invasion of GMOs and restricted access to costly patented seed, rural communities’ very subsistence is placed in jeopardy, along with the environment and diversity of the Andean region. Action Alerts
Urgent Action:
“The free market cannot be judged apart from the ends that it seeks to accomplish and from the values that it transmits on a societal level. Indeed, the market cannot find in itself the principles for its legitimization; it belongs to the consciences of individuals and to public responsibility to establish a just relationship between means and ends. A year ago, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was pushed through the House of Representatives with a razor-slim one-vote margin. Faith-based, labor, environmental and health groups united to say that this model for trade is broken. Now, this summer, the Administration wants to push through a new trade agreement, this time with Peru. Unfortunately it is based on the same harmful model. On July 13, legislation to implement the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement was introduced to Congress. On July 20, an initial test vote took place in the House Ways and Means Committee. It is possible that a final vote could take place on the House floor as early as the week of July 24. Representatives are under intense pressure to vote yes, regardless of the actual contents of the agreement. It is crucial in this key moment to make our voices heard as people of faith. Columban missionaries have had a presence in Peru for more than 50 years and know first hand how such a trade agreement will harm poor Peruvian communities. In response, Columban leadership in the United States and Peru has sent a letter to Congress to tell them that the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement does not meet even minimal standards of fairness in trade, and, as such, that we cannot support it. Join your voice to ours to tell Congress NO! Following are some suggested talking points and a sample letter for your use. Please call or write your representatives, and urge them to vote no on the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement! For more information about the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement, visit www.citizen.org/trade/afta Not sure who represents you? Need an address or phone number? See capwiz.com/networklobby/dbq/officials If you should decide to call your members of Congress, we offer the following talking points:
If you would like to fax a letter to your members of Congress, we offer the following sample letter.
«Date» Dear «Title» «Last», I am writing to express my steadfast opposition to the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA). As a person of faith, I believe that trade agreements should first take into account the most vulnerable members of society and not put them further at risk. Currently more than half the population of Peru lives in poverty. The Peru FTA does nothing to remedy this situation and will instead aggravate it by threatening farmers’ livelihoods, restricting access to essential medicines and not providing for fair working conditions or equitable distribution of wealth. A number of provisions are of particular concern to me: • Access to medicines: Stringent patent and data exclusivity clauses in the agreement will deprive many Peruvians from access to life-saving drugs for treatable illnesses by preventing the entrance of cheaper generic alternatives in the market. A study released by the Health Ministry of Peru predicts drastic increases in costs for essential medicines, depriving 700,000 to 900,000 Peruvians each year of the medicines that they need. • GMOs and patenting of traditional knowledge: The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a threat to indigenous communities and small-scale farmers who depend on traditional knowledge and organic farming techniques. At the same time, the agreement opens the way for large pharmaceutical and agribusiness corporations to patent traditional knowledge and plants, robbing communities of their cultural and ecological heritage without concern for livelihoods or the delicate balance of the ecosystem. • Agriculture: Poor farming communities in Peru cannot compete with subsidized agricultural products from the United States. As traditional crops are undermined, threatening food security and farmers’ livelihoods, many farmers will be faced with tough choices of leaving their land to migrate to urban centers or even joining the migrant flows north. • Labor: The USTR denied the Peruvian government’s call to include core ILO standards in the text of the agreement. In light of the recent revelations on human trafficking in Jordan, it is clear that an “enforce your own laws” standard such as what has been incorporated into the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement is inadequate. While I understand that trade is an important, integral part of our relationships with other countries, I also believe that it should be structured to conform to standards of fairness and justice. I hope that you will consider the above-mentioned factors when you are deciding how to vote on the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement. Furthermore, in the event of its passage, I ask that a fixed review date and an “opt-out” clause be established providing a safety net to the Peruvian population, and bolstering the democratically elected government of Peru’s ability to respond to its citizens’ needs, thereby reinforcing regional stability. From a moral and ethical standpoint, I find the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement unacceptable in its current form. I urge you to please vote no on the Peru FTA when it comes before you. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, «Your name» Contact Us
We welcome submissions, comments and suggestions.
|