In 1992, we had a presidential election. In 1993, we had NAFTA. In 1996, we had another presidential election. What are we getting this year? More NAFTA. As surely as winter follows autumn, it looks like we are locked into a cycle of elections-then-free trade agreements. As much as politicians tell us we want free trade agreements, they have a habit of negotiating them right after presidential elections and in a congressional off-year.
The subject for debate in the upcoming round of NAFTA is whether to expand the trade agreement to include Chile. This had been scheduled for 1996, but was delayed by – of course – the elections. Free trade enjoys remarkable support in both parties, but politicians don’t want to discuss it during an election year, because free trade is not popular among voters. Free trade is popular among corporations. Discussing free trade in the midst of a presidential debate might highlight the fact that politicians of both parties are more responsive to corporations than they are to voters.
Before we take up the subject of NAFTA-plus-Chile, maybe it would do us good to reflect on the benefits brought to North America by three-and-a-half years of the original NAFTA. The original free trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico was supposed to create jobs, raise the wages of poorly paid workers and provide a level playing field for environmental regulations. Passing NAFTA was supposed to mean the end of the maquiladora industries, the U.S. companies that jumped over the Texas border looking for low-wage workers and nonexistent environmental laws.
Since the passage of NAFTA, the wages of the average Mexican worker have risen by 50 percent. During the same period, Mexican inflation has gone up 100 percent. So, while the workers may earn 50 percent more, they can buy 50 percent less. So, the economics didn’t pan out so good and the little guy wound up on the short end of the stick. That’s not news. You can’t expect the New York Times to cover that.
So how about the environment? Let’s check on that. In 1992, we elected Bill Clinton. In 1993, we got NAFTA. In 1994, we elected a Republican Congress and in 1995 they tried to dismantle the environmental regulatory apparatus of the United States of America. Not so fast there, Newt. Under NAFTA’s environmental side agreement, the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation was established to ensure even-handed enforcement of environmental law across the continent. The timber salvage rider, passed by Congress and signed by Clinton, deliberately bypassed environmental safeguards written into American law. The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund blew the whistle on the rider, hauled the U.S. before the Commission on Environmental Cooperation – and the commission refused to address the issue. In fact, there has not been a single case of enforcement by the commission in three and a half years.
I’m running out of time, I’ll have to speed this up. So NAFTA and wages is a bust, NAFTA and the environment is a bust. NAFTA and the maquiladoras? There are 48 percent more Mexican workers in the maquiladoras now than there were before NAFTA – so that too, is a bust. Now our leaders want to extend this exquisite misery to Chile. And, as in 1993, they want this new NAFTA to pass through Congress on the so-called “fast track,” which means no debate.
But there is some hope. Some congressional representatives, of both parties, are supporting the NAFTA Accountability Act. It says no new NAFTAs until the first one lives up to its promises and if the first one hasn’t panned out in three years, we chuck that one, too.
So get on the horn to your congresspeople and tell them if they ain’t supporting the NAFTA Accountability Act, they’d better.
Not Another NAFTA
In 1992, we had a presidential election. In 1993, we had NAFTA. In 1996, we had another presidential election. What are we getting this year? More NAFTA. As surely as winter follows autumn, it looks like we are locked into a cycle of elections-then-free trade agreements. As much as politicians tell us we want free trade agreements, they have a habit of negotiating them right after presidential elections and in a congressional off-year.
The subject for debate in the upcoming round of NAFTA is whether to expand the trade agreement to include Chile. This had been scheduled for 1996, but was delayed by – of course – the elections. Free trade enjoys remarkable support in both parties, but politicians don’t want to discuss it during an election year, because free trade is not popular among voters. Free trade is popular among corporations. Discussing free trade in the midst of a presidential debate might highlight the fact that politicians of both parties are more responsive to corporations than they are to voters.
Before we take up the subject of NAFTA-plus-Chile, maybe it would do us good to reflect on the benefits brought to North America by three-and-a-half years of the original NAFTA. The original free trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico was supposed to create jobs, raise the wages of poorly paid workers and provide a level playing field for environmental regulations. Passing NAFTA was supposed to mean the end of the maquiladora industries, the U.S. companies that jumped over the Texas border looking for low-wage workers and nonexistent environmental laws.
Since the passage of NAFTA, the wages of the average Mexican worker have risen by 50 percent. During the same period, Mexican inflation has gone up 100 percent. So, while the workers may earn 50 percent more, they can buy 50 percent less. So, the economics didn’t pan out so good and the little guy wound up on the short end of the stick. That’s not news. You can’t expect the New York Times to cover that.
So how about the environment? Let’s check on that. In 1992, we elected Bill Clinton. In 1993, we got NAFTA. In 1994, we elected a Republican Congress and in 1995 they tried to dismantle the environmental regulatory apparatus of the United States of America. Not so fast there, Newt. Under NAFTA’s environmental side agreement, the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation was established to ensure even-handed enforcement of environmental law across the continent. The timber salvage rider, passed by Congress and signed by Clinton, deliberately bypassed environmental safeguards written into American law. The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund blew the whistle on the rider, hauled the U.S. before the Commission on Environmental Cooperation – and the commission refused to address the issue. In fact, there has not been a single case of enforcement by the commission in three and a half years.
I’m running out of time, I’ll have to speed this up. So NAFTA and wages is a bust, NAFTA and the environment is a bust. NAFTA and the maquiladoras? There are 48 percent more Mexican workers in the maquiladoras now than there were before NAFTA – so that too, is a bust. Now our leaders want to extend this exquisite misery to Chile. And, as in 1993, they want this new NAFTA to pass through Congress on the so-called “fast track,” which means no debate.
But there is some hope. Some congressional representatives, of both parties, are supporting the NAFTA Accountability Act. It says no new NAFTAs until the first one lives up to its promises and if the first one hasn’t panned out in three years, we chuck that one, too.
So get on the horn to your congresspeople and tell them if they ain’t supporting the NAFTA Accountability Act, they’d better.