Debate on free trade?

SO FAR, Mr Errol McLeod, President General of the Oilfield Workers Trade Union, is the only influential person in our country to oppose publicly our membership in the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement which is due to be launched in the next two years. Mr McLeod's forthright opposition to the FTAA is welcome not because we agree with him, and we do not, but because we hope it would stimulate a national debate on the meaning and nature of this hemispheric trade agreement and its implications for Trinidad and Tobago and the Caricom region. Not even the UNC Opposition, preoccupied as it is with a policy of aggressive non-cooperation, has seen the need for a national debate on the creation of both the Caricom Single Market and Economy and the FTAA and the challenges which these new arrangements will pose for our country and the region. UNC leader Mr Basdeo Panday, erstwhile champion of labour and man of the Left, now seems more intent on playing the race card than being concerned about these coming trading agreements, particularly the FTAA which, according to Mr McLeod, is "not in the best interest of this nation." The OWTU leader, in fact, believes that TT is not ready for the launching of this hemispheric pact in 2005 and accuses Trade and Industry Minister Ken Valley of "negotiating out of ignorance."

Mr McLeod has not given precise reasons for his opposition but they could not be very different from those objectors who demonstrate persistently and vociferously at international discussions on globalisation and free trade. These conscientious protesters regard the free-trade movement as creating a new world economic order designed to benefit developed countries with their advanced productive systems and efficient use of technology while poorer states, still struggling with the problems of underdevelopment, will find themselves with little or no protection in a brutal world of open competition. As we have noted before, the reality we must face is that the CSME and, more so the FTAA, will be something of a two-edged sword. A few weeks ago, Mr Anthony Hosang, president of the TT Manufacturers Association, put it simply this way: "If producers manufacture goods that can take advantage of the FTAA, we will enjoy tremendous opportunities. However, if our products fall short in any way, we are in danger of seeing our business disappear."

While we understand these concerns, we cannot agree with Mr McLeod that TT should reject membership in the FTAA and the regulations of the World Trade Agreement. The free trade movement is now a tidal wave that is sweeping the countries of the world along with it; whatever its pros and cons, we cannot attempt to evade it without being left behind, isolated, incurring serious economic damage. Indeed, the nature of our trading economy, based largely on the export of hydrocarbon and energy-based products, would render our membership imperative. We cannot expect to enjoy free markets for such a range of products without reciprocating. It is the non-energy manufacturing sector of our economy that will face the severest challenges from the formation of these new trading agreements. How will they deal with the demand for greater productivity? Will the increasing use of technology result in more unemployment? What strategies will then be needed for expanding the non-oil sector? But our country, our society, the public at large are still not really aware of the full ramifications of these treaties, precisely what they entail and what should be the national response to them. Perhaps someone will want to reply to Mr McLeod. Or the Opposition may ask for a debate since the agreements may also impinge on our constitution.