The fifth Ministers’ Summit of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is approaching and will be held from the 10th-14th of September of this year in Cancún, in the state of Quintana Roo in Mexico.  If NAFTA and other free trade agreements (FTAs) are impositions of stronger countries onto weaker ones, if the Plan Puebla Panama (PPP) is the regional expression of these rules in a group of countries, if the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is the continental expression of these rules in the way that the European Union is for that continent, then the WTO is the global expression of commercial rules that benefit large multinational corporations.  Therefore, these four elements, NAFTA, the PPP, the FTAA, and the WTO, cannot be separated from each other.

The offices of the FTAA in the Mexican city of Puebla were inaugurated last March 14th amid popular protests.  At the same time, the Mexican Committee of the Continental Campaign Against the FTAA met with high-level officials of the Department of the Economy, including with Mexico’s international trade representative Fernando de Mateo,  to clarify the position of the Mexican government in FTAA negotiations.  In a press release, the Committee affirmed that de Mateo’s declaration on the subject was clear: “The posture of Mexico in the FTAA negotiations is not an issue of public interest!”  (The press release can be reviewed at www.noalca.org and for more information, see www.asc-hsa.org).

No sector of society can now fail to see the disastrous results of the FTAs, which the FTAA will intensify.  Furthermore, and contrary to Mr. de Mateo’s opinion, they are a topic of public interest and debate.  The free market promised development, a fight against poverty, justice, equity, and jobs, among many other things.  However, things have not gone that way.  In this context, and because of its importance, we want to highlight the position of the Canadian, Mexican, Central American, and South American bishops, as well as that of the evangelical churches.

In a message from January 29th, 2003, the Bishops of the Episcopal Commission for Pastoral Social Work expressed their analysis of the situation in rural Mexico.  They directed their message to their brothers and sisters in the countryside, to Mexican Catholics, to the Mexican Government and to all people of conscience and goodwill.  In their message, they gave “an invitation to Mexican society and to our authorities to reflect on the delicate situation of millions of campesinos [small landholder-farmers], which goes back quite some time and which has been worsening in recent years.”  The bishops added that, “We are witnesses to the profound respect that our brothers who live in the country have for the land.  We recognize that families, communities, and a whole way of life have roots in it.  We want to particularly emphasize what the land means for our indigenous brothers and sisters, who maintain a vital relationship with it, a relationship which nourishes vital community and religious ties.”

The bishops stated that they observe “with profound concern” a widespread tendency to see that land only as “a means of production, capital, a commodity to be bought and sold.”  The excessive concentration of landholdings, the relocation off the land of its original owners, and the destruction of our country’s communal spaces are unjust situations that “cry out to Heaven.”  They added that, “If the logic of the market continues to impose itself on the countryside, we cannot expect anything but increasing poverty, the destruction of rural cultures, emigration, and worst of all, a spiral of violence and death which is incompatible with God’s plan, which desires a life with dignity and justice for His sons and daughters.” 

The pastors of the Mexican Catholic Church alerted that, “Because of the dignity that comes from having been created by God in His image and redeemed by Christ, all men have the right to life with dignity.  This right entails the rejection of all forms of violence.  The violence of poverty, of misery, of damage to the environment, are now realities suffered by millions of our brothers in Mexico.  As pastors, we confirm that the countryside is one of the spheres in which this violence is strongest.”

“With these words,” said the bishops, “we wish to send a message of solidarity to all of you, our brothers in the countryside, who every day suffer the whiplashes of poverty and misery.  To those of you who see how your families are destroyed by the emigration of their members, provoked by the difficulty of extracting from the land even the minimum necessary for survival.  To those of you who, in the last decades, have suffered the decline of your quality of life due to the lack of educational and health services, and who have seen the decay of your economic activities.  You are the judgement that is pending on the world for its skewed and peculiar way of organizing the economic sphere, which continues to exclude millions of brothers from the banquet of Creation.  You, nevertheless, are called today to affirm life amid death, showing us that from poverty and path can be built that will make us grow in our humanity; a path in which life is recognized as a gift, in which our generosity overflows our own material resources, in which we maintain the capacity for celebration and joy even amidst the hardships and troubles of existence.”

The bishops’ diagnosis of the situation was: “In Mexico, where one in every four people lives in a rural area, working directly or indirectly in agriculture, the reality is lacerating: the majority of these people live in poverty and a large number of them in extreme poverty.  This situation is especially dramatic among indigenous groups.”  They added that, “All throughout our history, there has been a permanent discussion about the development of rural Mexico.  Many of our great conflicts have been linked to the rural world.  A century ago we discussed the ownership of the land.  Today the discussion centers on the type of development that we want for the countryside, a discussion which cannot be separated from our national project.”

According to the bishops, “For thirty years the Mexican countryside, and small farmers in particular (who are the great majority), have been suffering a steady deterioration.  This is due to several factors.  First, the corporatist strategy that was used for many years to manipulate the countryside politically.  Another is the lack of necessary supports for production such as infrastructure, investment in research, and credit.  A third is the form of marketing which has led to the enrichment of resellers but not of the majority of producers.  And finally, a series of public policies designed to secure supplies from imports rather than by improving productivity.  The effects of these factors are now being seriously questioned.”

The bishops refer to history, adding that, “Furthermore, the process of economic globalization has intensified in the last decades.  After 1986 and especially during the 1990s, Mexico has integrated itself into this process.  As part of that integration, Mexico signed the NAFTA treaty with the United States and Canada.  This involved modifying Mexico’s public policy for rural areas.”  They continued, “This treaty has been beneficial for some regions and producers in this country, but the majority of producers, small farmers and landholders, and indigenous people have seen a severe deterioration in their economic activity and their quality of life.”  And there are many examples.  The bishops cite the example that among the “benefited sectors are producers of legumes, vegetables, and fruits, who could take advantage of NAFTA benefits.  Others, however, such as grain and meat producers, have been negatively affected.  It is worth noting that while the first group numbers in the tens of thousands, the second numbers almost three million.” 

For the bishops, “Rural poverty will steadily become more extreme unless we can achieve a level of productivity equal to that of our trading partners.  As pastors, we recognize that there are very different production capacities.  Only a small part of producers are mechanized, while the great majority employ traditional methods of subsistence farming.  So, we affirm that subsistence production has increased while the sale of agricultural products in the internal market has declined.” 

Along with the poverty of rural areas, people are abandoning them in increasing numbers.  In response to this situation, the Mexican Catholic Church maintains that, “The phenomenon of migration, which we spoke out about a few days ago in conjunction with the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States, is growing alarmingly.  In that recent pastoral letter we affirmed that ‘all persons have the right to find economic, political, and social opportunities in their own countries which allow them to achieve a full and dignified life.’”  And they added, “In recent years the Mexican economy has not grown sufficiently to incorporate the available labor in the country, and it has failed to employ the labor displaced from the countryside to other sectors of the economy.  This has forced the migration of persons, families, and communities under dangerous and precarious conditions.  This emigration has grown principally toward the United States of America.  Many of these migrants are undocumented and suffer, both along the way and once arrived at their destinations, abuses against their rights and human dignity.  Also, many have died trying to cross the border that divides prosperity from misery.”

The low prices of agricultural products and the steadily increasing importation of foodstuffs from the USA put the country in danger.  “This fact,” say the bishops, “leads us to signal that for the country to undermine its food sovereignty represents a serious insecurity for the future.  This is a decision that merits a wide public debate.  We should also debate the ethical challenge posed by food quality standards, including those for imports, which should be stricter.  We also want to indicate that there do not appear to be signs that malnutrition in children and adults has been declining.  In rural areas, one out of every six children suffers from malnutrition, and nationwide, half of the children under two suffer from anemia.” 

These facts, “move us to express, in solidarity and along with the entire Church, the need to establish the primacy of people in all development models.  In this period of globalization, in which it can seem that the market dominates everything, it is good to remember the words of John Paul II, ‘not all human needs can and should be solved by the market.’”

The bishops insist that agreements should account for differences.  According to them, “In recent years, Mexico has negotiated a great number of trade agreements with other countries.  As Paul VI affirmed in his encyclical Populorum Progressio: ‘the teaching of Leo XIII remains valid: the agreement of the parties, if there is too much inequality between them, in insufficient to guarantee a just contract.  In that case, the rule of free consent is subordinate to the demands of natural rights ... free exchange should only be considered just when it is subordinated to the demands of social justice.’”  So for the bishops, “This text allows us to illuminate the debate which has intensified in recent days over the justice of NAFTA, especially with regards to farming and livestock.  It is worth asking ourselves whether inequalities in infrastructure, credit, and supports for production between US and Canadian farmers on one hand and Mexican farmers on the other were considered during NAFTA’s negotiation.” 

The Catholic Church in Mexico has described the free trade agreements as follows: “Reality allows us to conclude that although a small group of producers has benefitted from the negotiations and enforcement of NAFTA, a much wider sector has been excluded from those benefits.  The gap has grown between agroexport production, which enjoys access to credit and markets, and agricultural production intended for self-sufficiency or local and regional consumption.  We should keep in mind that the trade agreements that Mexico has signed are means, not ends in themselves.  They should serve to achieve better living conditions for all Mexicans.  A modern and democratic focus of trade agreements and of their expression in national public policy should support the integral development of all of society.  As we noted in our pastoral letter, ‘economic activity should not be based exclusively on the market.  Instead, it should be directed by ethical rules and principles based on human dignity, the demands of social justice and the universal distribution of benefits intended by the Creator.’”

Nevertheless, for the bishops, although it is “inadequate and unjust that you, the campesinos and small farmers, be exclusively blamed for the deplorable situation in the Mexican countryside,” they do not withhold all blame.  The bishops are right to hold the campesinos partially responsible, as they have been passive in organizing themselves against injustice.  Many times, that passivity has been fomented, endorsed, and supported by the Catholic Church.

Although they never employ the term in their document, the bishops’ analysis speaks directly to the debate on neoliberalism, with respect to the role that the State plays in the economy.  In the neoliberal model, the State is intrinsically and obstacle, useful only insofar as it holds a monopoly on the use of force for repression, at least as long as police forces and national armies remain unprivatized.  Therefore, whether they intend to or not, the bishops take an anti-neoliberal stance: “The State has a social responsibility to not only alleviate the effects of poverty, but also to attack its fundamental causes.  Public expenditures, which in Mexico have been seriously restricted by debt service payments on internal and external debts, have been declining significantly.  While this occurs in Mexico, our trade parners have increased supports for their agricultural producers.  We call on our governors to follow long-term strategies for strengthening our agriculture.  These should include food safety standards, integrated policies of support that include research and development, and should favor rural cultures.” 

The bishops’ sentence is that NAFTA is an unjust and inequitable agreement which worsens conditions in the countryside such as “poverty, abandonment, the rupture of family and community bonds, forced emigration, and environmental degradation.”  In response to the essentially exclusive neoliberal model, the bishops add their voices to the call to “build a pluralistic and inclusive project based on justice for our Mexico.”  They also proposed some criteria and courses of action which should be employed to find a solution to the problems in the Mexican countryside: 1) “To recognize the fundamental right of every Mexican to life,” a right which should be “superior to any commercial or political treaty.”  2) To accept the shared responsibility of the government, campesinos, producers, and the rest of the sectors of society.  In this context, the bishops recall the words of Pope John Paul II, from January 29th, 1979 in Oaxaca, speaking to the indigenous people of Oaxaca and Chiapas: “The depressed world of the countryside, the work that with its sweat also waters its despair, can no longer wait until its dignity is fully and effectively recognized, as not inferior to that of any other social sector ... It has the right to be respected ... It has the right for the barriers of exploitation to be lifted ... It has the right for effective assistance—which is neither charity nor crumbs of justice—in order to gain access to the development which its dignity as humans and as children of God deserves.”

3) They ask the Mexican Government to slow down making trade agreements and ask that “the controversies that arise from them seek the greatest god, for the greatest number of people, for the longest time and with the smallest possible costs.” 4) “Support the organizations institutions, and groups which work for the benefit of campesinos and for the conservation of their traditions.  Also support those groups which promote a more just distribution and use of the land and the indispensable technical improvements which increase productivity.  And finally, support groups that seek fair terms of trade for rural producers and which work to foment theological reflection in favor of the land.  All of these policies are indispensable in these times.”

When the EZLN launched its uprising in 1994, coinciding with NAFTA coming into effect, it accurately analyzed the effects that the treaty would have in the countryside and on the indigenous population.  The Zapatistas demanded justice, respect, and dialogue with the Mexican Government and inclusion in the national economic project, among many other demands.  In particular, they proposed and carried out the dialogue for the Reform of the State in San Cristobal de las Casas, which neither the government nor the bishops participated in.  Many of these efforts were criticized or ignored by the majority of bishops, who not only criticized the indigenous people but also the bishops Samuel Ruiz Garcia of San Cristobal, who at the time was the president of the National Commission of Intermediation (CONAI), a position that many of them coveted.

Notwithstanding their initial opposition, the Episcopal conference now calls for a “Wide national debate, not only necessary but urgent, on the topic of our long-term national project.  It must have an authentic commitment from all social forces, a sound methodology, and basic objectives in order to define both the place which rural society should occupy and our ability to produce enough food for the entire population.  This debate should seek to rebuild the relationship between the Mexican State and rural society by: revaluing national agriculture in conjunction with campesinos, seeking equity and the reduction of rural poverty, pursuing sustainability, and fully recognizing the rights and cultures of indigenous peoples.” 

With this we realize that, as the saying goes, the Church always arrives, even if it is late.  And in reality, what they have said so far is nothing new in the analysis that has already been exhaustively presented by many actors, by campesinos, and by indigenous people.  What is notable is that they, the bishops, should say that, “Facing the situation of environmental, economic, and social emergency in the countryside, we call the government to listen to society, to dialogue with campesinos and other rural producers, and to use all of the resources at its disposal to assure benefits for the population currently excluded from development.  Free trade agreements in no way represent ironclad and unchangeable commitments.  The parties involved always have the option to resort to altering the treaty in case of an emergency.  The free interplay of market forces alone does not solve the problems of exclusion and poverty.  To save the countryside means to save the obligation to build a better future for the generations to come.  This is an ethical obligation, an economic necessity and a political imperative.” 

These are the conclusion of the Mexican bishops.  From another perspective, the journalist José Antonio Román shares the perspective of the Catholic bishops of Mexico and Central America who met in Costa Rica early this year.  Here we reproduce part of his report: “The Catholic bishops of Mexico and Central America expressed their ‘grave concern’ over the possible consequences of the FTAA and the PPP, given that under the current economic model, ‘in all the countries of the region,’ the gap between rich and poor has been growing despite increasing global wealth.  In their declaration, the representatives of the Pastoral for Human Mobility urged the governments of the region to adopt a generous, just, and humane treaty for all migrants which protects their rights and human dignity and stressed that public policies relevant to the movement of people should not encourage racist or xenophobic attitudes.

But the Evangelical Church has not lagged behind.  In the May 9th bulletin of the Continental Campaign Against the FTAA, it reported that during the April 28th-May 1st Continental Consultation “Globalizing the Full Life” in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the representatives of the Churches of Latin America and the Caribbean called for the creation of a “front to achieve the abolition of the ‘immoral, eternal, and impossible external debt.’”  The message to the region’s evangelical churches includes the rejection of the FTAA and the militarization of the region by the United States.  The churches also declare themselves in favor of a “deep and wide integration, based on human rights and care for the Creation.”  In the document “The Evangelical Churches say, ‘Enough!’” the churches laid out the following criticisms of the FTAA.

“1.  The greater part of the worlds economic, commercial, and financial relationships are concentrated among the Northern countries.  For example, the 28 most developed countries account for 56.6% of global output, export 78.5% of all goods and services and constitute 15.8% of the world’s population.  Out of these countries, the G7 alone accounts for 45.5% of global output, 48.8% of global exports and 11.8% of the world’s population.

“2.  There is a fear that this integration [by the FTAA] will favor the North’s largest corporations.  It is not concerned with strengthening national capital and internal markets; rather it is an agreement of competition between unequal partners, which inevitably means the subjugation or elimination of the weakest ones.

“3.  Latin America becomes a space for investment and profitability according to the following criteria: cheap labor, room for investment, particularly in emerging markets and services, and a market for speculative financial capital which seeks only its own gain. 

“4.  This integration is one of capital, not of peoples or persons.  Capital may move freely while further restrictions are placed on the mobility of people.  ‘A form of integration with a Latin American face draws our attention.  A challenge to the system could be to speak of an economic integration in our own language, with freedom to accept or not the demands of financial capital and with a more holistic vision of integration.’”

For his part, in an interview with Dermi Azvedo on May 17th, 2003, Monsignor Pedro Casaldáliga said, “Neoliberalism is transnational capital taken to the extreme.  It is the world subservient to capital and the market, which have been made into God and the reason for existence.  Secondly, neoliberalism involves absolving or excluding governments of their responsibilities as representatives of their nations and as providers of public services.”  Pedro Casaldáliga is the bishop of São Félix do Araguaia in the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil.  Azvedo confirms that he is one of the most respected representatives of the Church of the Poor in Brazil, Latin America, and the world.  He arrived in Amazonia as a Claretian missionary 25 years ago.  He is among the founders of the Missionary Indigenous Council (CIMI) and of the Pastoral Commission of the Earth (CPT) of the Brazilian Church.  The military government of Brazil attempted five times to expel him from the country.  Military operations invaded his prelature four times.  In 1977, the priest Juan Bosco Penido Burnier was shot and killed at his side; he and Pedro were protesting police tortures of women prisoners. 

During the interview Casaldáliga said, “Many times on this trip, I have been asked what the Church can do in the face of neoliberalism.  Recalling the advice of our ancient catechisms (‘against sloth, diligence; against gluttony, abstinence’), I responded, ‘against neoliberalism, the ever-new liberation.’”  And he added, “When the State is deprived of responsibility, then in fact society is deprived of it as well.  Society ceases to exist as such and the private sphere (and competition between private interests) comes to dominate.  Privatization continues to be the extreme form of private property which, from being private, becomes exclusive and begins to deprive others, the majority, of life.  Privatization is privilegization, the selection of a privileged minority which deserves to live and live well.” 

For Casaldáliga, neoliberalism is the negation of utopia, an institutionalized lie, the degeneration of the person and the negation of community.  Neoliberalism is the cold-blooded marginalization of the excess majority.  “In other words, we emerged from domination to move toward exclusion.  And, as is often said, today to be exploited is a privilege, because many do not even achieve the ‘condition’ of being exploited, given that they do not even have employment.  We are therefore living what is called a social Malthusianism, which prohibits the life of the majority.”

In the context of the elections in Latin America, Bishop Casaldáliga said, “Politicians are subservient to the power of neoliberal capitalism, represented by the IMF and the World Bank, and wide sectors of the popular forces are impotent.  In light of this situation, we should worry about a repeat, with only a few updates, of the elections of past years and even of past centuries.  The strategy is the same everywhere.  The promises and programs are the same.  All the political parties know the needs of the people perfectly well and they know how to design theoretical solutions. ... We should work to develop an integrated Latin American alternative.  Neither MERCOSUR (the Common Market of the Southern Cone) or NAFTA will do.  Mexico is doing badly.  Many owners have had to close their businesses.  The bishop of Chiapas, Mons. Samuel Ruiz, told me that any kind of insurrection can be foreseen in the country.  They have already gone to the extreme of importing milk from Australia.”

For his part, the Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, who was recently in Chiapas for the Hemispheric Encounter Facing Militarization (www.desmilitarizacion.org), denounced to representatives of the Latin American Churches that “the FTAA is the clear and concrete annexation of Latin America by the United States.”  He maintained that the treaty is an example of the “globalized totalitarianism that the United States is trying to impose on the entire world,” which includes even a “single mode of thinking.”

And the Canadian Churches declared: “We openly oppose the FTAA and we continue to look for alternatives to offer.”  This event was convened by the Latin American Council of Churches and more than one hundred representatives from all five continents attended.  (World Council of Churches, office of Media Relations: media@wcc-coe.org, www.wcc-coe.org). 

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168