1. General Principles

Background

No country can nor should remain isolated from the global economy. This does not mean, however, that the current "neo-liberal" or free market approach to globalization is the only, much less the best, form of economic integration.

This dominant free market approach (embodied in the North American Free Trade Agreement, large multinational corporations' negotiating agenda for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and the temporarily stalled Multilateral Agreement on Investment) argues that the global market on its own will allocate and develop the best possibilities for each country. Thus, free trade does not simply involve opening ourselves to global trade; it also entails renouncing our role as active subjects in determining our future, and instead allowing the market to decide the future for us. According to this view, it is unnecessary for us to envision the kind of society we want to be or could be. We only need to eliminate all obstacles to global trade, and the market itself will take on the task of offering us the best of all possible worlds.

The difference between this dominant approach and the alternative vision presented in this document lies not in whether we accept the opening of our economies to trade. The two fundamental differences are the following: 1) whether to have a national plan we can fight for or let the market determine the plan, and 2) whether capital, especially speculative capital, should be subject to international regulation.

The recent trend has been to allow all capital, even speculative capital, free rein, and let the world follow capital's interests. We argue that history has demonstrated that the market on its own does not generate development, let alone social justice. In contrast, we propose a world economy regulated at the national and supra-national levels in the interest of peace, democracy, sustainable development and economic stability.

Our position in this regard is very clear: we cannot remain on the sidelines, but must claim our role as valid stakeholders in the globalization dialogue. We must refuse to accept the current neo-liberal form of globalization as irreversible. We must not only reduce its negative consequences, but put forward a positive alternative.

We must find ways to take creative advantage of globalization and not passively submit to it. As citizens of the Americas, we refuse to be ruled by the law of supply and demand, and claim our role as individuals rather than simple commodities governed by the laws of the market.

Free trade has produced social and economic exclusion. This has resulted in the creation of a social stratum of citizens devalued by the current economic system and the societies that support it. Exclusion renders people unable to enter or re-enter the economic circuit, leading to a process of social "disqualification" and the loss of active citizenship. Anyone who has felt the negative effects of the transition to free trade, has become chronically unemployed, or whose job is precarious, lives and knows this exclusion.

We are not opposed to the establishment of rules for regional or international trade and investment. Nor does our criticism of the dominant, externally-imposed form of globalization imply a wish to return to the past, to close our economies and establish protectionist barriers, or to press for isolationist trade policies. But the current rules have not helped our countries overcome, nor even reduce, our economic problems. We propose alternative rules to regulate the global and hemispheric economies based on a different economic logic: that trade and investment should not be ends in themselves, but rather the instruments for achieving just and sustainable development.

Our proposal also promotes a social logic that includes areas such as labour, human rights, gender equity, the environment, and minorities—that is, previously excluded issues and people.

While our critique and proposal have a technical basis, they also spring from an ethical imperative. We refuse to accept the market as a god which controls our lives. We do not accept the inevitability of a model of globalization which excludes half or more of the world's population from the benefits of development. We do not accept that environmental degradation is the inevitable and necessary evil accompanying growth.

A profound ethical imperative pushes us to propose our own model of society, one supported by the many men and women united in hope for a more just and humane society for themselves and future generations.

Guiding Principles

1. Democracy and Participation

Debates, decision-making, and framework building in matters of economic integration have mostly been dominated by financial, corporate, and political élites. Greater democratization in trade and investment decision-making must be introduced. International agreements should be ratified by citizens through direct consultation: for example, through plebiscite or national referendum.

The democratization of debates and decision-making is a necessary precondition, but not sufficient in itself for the development of new just and sustainable rules on investment, environment, and labour. Citizens must not only approve economic and social policies, but also participate in their formulation, implementation, and evaluation. Furthermore, they must be able to change or modify these policy directions. In order to realize this goal, it may be necessary to implement special initiatives to guarantee access to debate for marginalized or oppressed social groups, including women.

Global corporations have grown so large that they can no longer be effectively controlled by our governments. We need new instruments to reassert public control and citizen sovereignty over these firms.

The political stability needed for sustainable development requires agreements on economic integration to include mechanisms to ensure democratic security. Stability should be based on democratic participation and not on coercion. Any agreement should promote democracy in the Americas, without being interventionist in internal affairs. Democratic and non-coercive security entails civilian monitoring (accountable to citizens) of the forces of law and order. Civilian control is required, for example, to halt the arms race and the militarization of broad areas of the Americas which is currently being conducted under the pretext of fighting arms and drug trafficking and drug production.

International democratization requires the reform of United Nations institutions, including the Security Council, as well as international financial and trade institutions. The reforms must be based on consultation in every country and should be oriented to serving humankind's objectives: sustainable development and democracy and peace based on justice and respect for human dignity.

Such institutions should not continue to be the tools of large multinational corporations and nuclear powers. The democratization of the world and inter -American system must also stop the exclusion of countries for ideological or political reasons, as is currently the case with Cuba.

All integration agreements must ensure that the defence and promotion of human rights, taken in the broadest sense, is also globalized. That is, not only civil and political rights and individual protections should be included, but also the collective rights of peoples and their communities: economic, social, cultural, and environmental. Special attention should be given to the rights of indigenous communities and peoples, and mechanisms put in place to eliminate all forms of discrimination and the oppression of women.

2. Sovereignty and social welfare

The rules flowing from agreements should preserve the power of individual countries to set high standards of living, valuing dignified work, the creation of enough good jobs, healthy communities, and a clean environment within their borders. There should be no limitations on the sovereignty of peoples, expressed at the state, provincial or local levels.

In today's world, economic sovereignty, stability and social welfare require making productive economic activities a priority, while discouraging speculative investment and regulating the free flow of footloose capital. Corporate interests should not undermine the economic sovereignty of our countries.

Economic integration should represent a commitment to improve the quality of life for all. Our countries should not be promoted on the basis of low wages, systematic discrimination against women or other groups, lack of social protections or lax enforcement. National competitiveness cannot be rooted in the deterioration of living standards and/or the environment.

Equalization of standards should be achieved through upward harmonization. Trade and integration accords, as well as domestic economic policies, should include social objectives, time-tables, indicators of social impact, and corrective remedies.

National governments must protect local efforts aimed at achieving viable, economically sustainable and food-self-sufficient communities, both urban and rural.

Giving priority to welfare in international agreements means reducing military budgets and allocating resources to people's education and health. Money saved through military reductions in powerful nations should be channelled toward an international war on poverty.

Combatting drug production, trafficking and consumption should be an element of integration accords. Rather than taking a purely military approach, however, this should be achieved through mass educational campaigns, the elimination of the poverty driving this lucrative business, fighting against corruption and the involvement in the drug trade of high-level authorities, and other measures aimed at the root causes of the problem.

International agreements must preserve the sovereignty of nation states over domestic matters and in the application of their own laws. They should not allow for the presence of armed troops or foreign police forces within the borders of a sovereign nation.

3. Reduce inequalities

A main objective of any agreement should be the reduction of inequalities within and among nations, between women and men, and among races.

A) Among nations: The rush toward the integration of highly unequal economies without social protections is creating a climate in which large corporations can reduce the standard of living and wages in all regions of the world. The new rules should include mechanisms to reduce imbalance among nations through raising living standards in the poorest countries. This would not only be a step toward meeting the demands for justice and equity in these countries. It would also reduce the power of corporations to take advantage of such inequalities to weaken standards and wages everywhere by threatening to move production to areas where labour costs and environmental protections are lower.

B) Within nations: Inequalities and extreme poverty have been on the increase for more than a decade in the Americas. The new rules should reduce these inequalities, encouraging redistribution of income, land and natural resources.

C) Between women and men and among races: Women, people of colour, and indigenous people have had to shoulder a disproportionate share of the economic and social decline caused by neo-liberal policy. The cuts to public sector services and employment and the reduction of secure employment and democratic structures have personally affected more women then men and have hit girls harder than boys.

When resources are scarce, decisions made by many families and societies, consciously or unconsciously, tend to favour males. On top of this, as society's traditional care-givers, women end up with the responsibility to help others whose access to jobs or publicly-funded programs have been cut. This burden comes in addition to existing disparities in the economic, legal, social, and political position of women in countries throughout the hemisphere.

Discrimination must be ended by implementing new strategies and economic models to reverse the effects of current policies. Countries should also meet existing international obligations to achieve equity and implement social programs and intensify international cooperation toward this end.

4. Sustainability

Along with the war on poverty, sustainability and protection of the environment are the fundamental challenges for any economic strategy or integration agreement. Trade agreements should give priority to the quality of development, which implies establishing social and environmental limits to growth.

Sustainability and the welfare of the population should take precedence over short-term profits.

The new rules on integration should allow for more democratic control of land and natural resources and genuine respect for indigenous rights and land. Rich countries and major corporations have accumulated an ecological debt and occupy an "ecological footprint"¹ far greater than their population and territory warrants. New agreements should allocate the costs of transition towards a sustainable model based on principles which recognize common concerns and different responsibilities. A truly sustainable alternative agreement would also include a comprehensive restructuring of incentives and rules designed to ensure that industrial production reflects its true, long-term costs.

Finally, efforts to promote sustainability should go beyond the natural world to include social sustainability, including the protection of the welfare of girls and boys, as well as family groups, and minority rights. This requires the creation of effective sanctions against policies which attract investment through promises of low wages, super-exploitation of workers, especially women, or a free hand in exploiting natural resources in areas where the population is under the control of local élites.

¹ The term "ecological footprint" refers to the amount of land required to support present consumption levels of materials and energy.