Dear Editor,
Unfortunately I was unable to decode the logic behind Natalie Nougayrède's support for Ceta (GW, 11th November), a logic which seemed to resort to a number of comparisons which (I felt) did not hold water: For example why had people protested against Ceta but not against a treaty with Vietnam? It sounded like anti-free-traders were somehow against democratic Canada and for the autocrats in Vietnam. Bizarre!
No, the whole point of being against these treaties is the idea that the goal of unfettered global trade (often touted in the name of "growth") is, in these times of climate-change and dwindling resources, completely inappropriate. Yes, whether this be Canada or Vietnam or anywhere else, surely it is only right and proper that governments retain the power to manage their economies, to offer some protection to local and regional structures, and to keep big-business from excessive dominance.
Indeed, some of these treaties are more than toxic: Take for example the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), intended for Africa and the Caribbean, which hold poor countries to ransom, obliging them to open up their fledgling economies to European business if they want to continue exporting (for example agricultural produce) to Europe. These countries, made defenseless by treaties, then often become the dumping-grounds for excess production caused by subsidies from Brussels or our discarded products.
So, Natalie, please take another look: These treaties stink ... however you try to dress them up!
Regards
