tion. The economic downturn that affected South America in 1998-99 also clouded the FTAA negotiations. Brazils devaluation triggered a trade dispute with its neighbors (especially Argentina) that threatened to destabilize MERCOSUR. The member countries of the Andean Community face dire economic and political problems that could spill over their borders and undermine not only the Community but the FTAA as well. In contrast to the situation in South America, Mexico and Central America are doing relatively very well, and they may conclude that they are better off casting their fates with the United States and Canada through an expanded NAFTA or bilateral trade agreements. Another development that slowed down the process of the FTAA was the U.S. elections last year.The goal of the FTAA is to impose the failed NAFTA model of increased privatization and deregulation hemisphere-wide. Imposition of these rules would empower corporations to constrain governments from setting standards for public health and safety, to safeguard their workers, and to ensure corporations do not pollute the communities in which they operate. Effectively, these rules would handcuff governments' public interest policymaking and enhance corporate control at the expense of citizens throughout the Americas. FTAA would deepen the negative effects of NAFTA we've seen in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. over the past seven years and expand NAFTA's damage to the other thirty-one countries involved. The FTAA would intensify NAFTA's "race to the bottom": under FTAA, exploited workers in Mexico could be leveraged against even more desperate workers in Haiti, Guatemala or Brazil by companies seeking tariff-free access back into U.S. markets. A quick look at NAFTA's legacy reveals disastrous consequences:An estimated 395,000 U.S. jobs have been lost since NAFTA as companies relocated to Mexico to take advantage of the weaker labor standards. These workers usually find jobs with less s...
