Last week, several vans of Carleton students journeyed up to Minneapolis to participate in the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's conference, Lessons from NAFTA: Building a New Fair Trade Agenda. Citizens of Mexico, the United States and Canada gathered to reflect on the tragedies that NAFTA hath wrought and share hope for change in the future.
According to the USDA's website, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began to remove barriers to trade and investment among Canada, the United States and Mexico with the strike of the clock on January 1, 1994. Many tariffs were removed immediately, while others were phased out in a process that ends in 2008. The goals of NAFTA include reducing barriers to trade, increasing cooperation and working conditions throughout North America, creating jobs, creating a safe tri-national market and mutually advantageous trade rules and stimulating investment. Many argue though that NAFTA has had intensely negative impacts on small family farmers and consumers, while reversing many previously high standards for labor, the environment and food safety and sovereignty as the investment-stimulating aspect of NAFTA has been taken advantage of by multinational corporations.
Acclaimed liberal writer John Nichols of The Nation gave the keynote address of the conference, beginning with a sweeping criticism of North American media and the danger of general American (or perhaps Unitedstatsian) ignorance about the world beyond their borders. Moving into the topic at hand, Nichols stated, "The missing factor in debates about trade policy is people rather than elites." He stated that trade should be "based on humans and human values" before diving into a critique of each Democratic Presidential candidate's stance on the issue, essentially concluding that no candidate but the "fringe" candidates are willing to be critical of Free Trade. He highlighted the core problems with trade as a campaign issue, noting first that campaigns are financed by "Wall Street, not Main Street." Additionally Nichols noted that political parties don't like trade issues because they don't bring in contributions and they vary significantly by region across the country.
Though Nichols focused his address on Free Trade as it is viewed within the United States, the heart of the conference lay in addressing those places where the Free Trade policies of NAFTA are more than buzzwords on a Presidential candidate's lips, in the lives of farmers throughout North America and consumers especially in Mexico. Following Nichol's address, a Trinational Roundtable discussion among Minnesota's Secretary of State, a member of the Council of Canadians and several Mexican activists brought forth many of the issues to be discussed throughout the conference: immigration issues, wage asymmetries, xenophobia, food security and sovereignty, water, hunger and malnutrition, genetic engineering and social change.
Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians offered a metaphor to structure our approach toward NAFTA, and discussions throughout the conference. She described the perspective of viewing an accident from a Penthouse above the scene, from the first floor looking directly out onto the scene, or from within the accident itself. We were challenged to place ourselves in the accident, empathizing with the individual lives that have been affected, empowered to confront those in the elitist, disengaged Penthouse.
Break-out sessions during the conference looked at the way NAFTA influences dumping, food sovereignty, bio-energy, immigration policy, labor rights and the environment. The general consensus is that the trade status quo is far from acceptable, and we need to get out of the Penthouse and onto the street, fighting for justice for those being destroyed by the accident.
Photo by Flickr user Lakerae used under a Creative Commons license
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
reddit
StumbleUpon
Comments
AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION
The term ‘Free Trade’ is usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental barriers to international trade. There is no doubt that some recent free trade agreements have not been very good for the American worker. On the other hand, the agreements have been great for the large multinational corporations, particularly those that have moved their manufacturing plants from the United States to China, Mexico and other low-wage countries where they can hire people there for a few dollars a week. These corporations can now produce their products without worrying about the costs of meeting OSHA requirements, providing employee health care or pensions for its workers and then they can bring their products back into the USA to sell. These products oftentimes are not made to the same quality standards as when they were produced in America and as recents incidents involving Chineese imports have shown, these products can pose health hazards to Americans as well.
The supporters of many free trade agreements, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have always promised increased exports, better jobs and better wages. Under many of these free trade agreements, however, just the opposite has occurred. Under NAFTA, for example, the U.S. trade deficit has soared and now averages $55-65 Billion dollars per month; the U.S. has lost over a million manufacturing jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly. In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of either the United States or Mexico.
In 2005, a new mechanism was created to speed the further expansion of the NAFTA free trade agreement into a North American Union. It is called the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)’ The SPP is designed to facilitate the establishment of a North America Union through the “economic integration” of the US, Mexico and Canada. The most important feature of the SPP is that it does not require congressional ratification or the passage of any federal legislation by the congress of the United States. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States. How else would Mexican truckers be able to begin operating in the USA over the objections of Congress, American truckers and most of the American people?
The people and their elected representatives in congress no longer seem to have a voice when it comes to international trade. This is definitely a national sovereignty issue. International trade issues that affect 300+ million Americans should be made by the people’s representatives in Congress, not by a handful of government bureaucrats and corporate elites who use their government connections to bypass congress and ignore our Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
The goal of these international trade elite is to create an integrated North American Union, complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the proposed Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the destruction of our national sovereignty. A free America, with limited, constitutional government, would just be a memory.
Not all free trade agreements are bad, but I believe that the United States of America must withdraw from any international agreements that infringe upon the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the American people.
By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
www.johnwallaceforcongress.com
ghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghhghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghhghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghghhghghghghghghghghghghghghghghgghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION
The term ‘Free Trade’ is usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental barriers to international trade. There is no doubt that some recent free trade agreements have not been very good for the American worker. On the other hand, the agreements have been great for the large multinational corporations, particularly those that have moved their manufacturing plants from the United States to China, Mexico and other low-wage countries where they can hire people there for a few dollars a week. These corporations can now produce their products without worrying about the costs of meeting OSHA requirements, providing employee health care or pensions for its workers and then they can bring their products back into the USA to sell. These products oftentimes are not made to the same quality standards as when they were produced in America and as recents incidents involving Chineese imports have shown, these products can pose health hazards to Americans as well.
The supporters of many free trade agreements, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have always promised increased exports, better jobs and better wages. Under many of these free trade agreements, however, just the opposite has occurred. Under NAFTA, for example, the U.S. trade deficit has soared and now averages $55-65 Billion dollars per month; the U.S. has lost over a million manufacturing jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly. In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of either the United States or Mexico.
In 2005, a new mechanism was created to speed the further expansion of the NAFTA free trade agreement into a North American Union. It is called the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)’ The SPP is designed to facilitate the establishment of a North America Union through the “economic integration” of the US, Mexico and Canada. The most important feature of the SPP is that it does not require congressional ratification or the passage of any federal legislation by the congress of the United States. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States. How else would Mexican truckers be able to begin operating in the USA over the objections of Congress, American truckers and most of the American people?
The people and their elected representatives in congress no longer seem to have a voice when it comes to international trade. This is definitely a national sovereignty issue. International trade issues that affect 300+ million Americans should be made by the people’s representatives in Congress, not by a handful of government bureaucrats and corporate elites who use their government connections to bypass congress and ignore our Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
The goal of these international trade elite is to create an integrated North American Union, complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the proposed Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the destruction of our national sovereignty. A free America, with limited, constitutional government, would just be a memory.
Not all free trade agreements are bad, but I believe that the United States of America must withdraw from any international agreements that infringe upon the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the American people.
By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
www.johnwallaceforcongress.com
"North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)"
This in Europe would have been referred to as the "Common Market" in the 1970s, that eventually was progressed into the European Economic Community (EEC), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP, with its butter mountains and wine lakes), the Exchange Rate Mechnism (ERM) that collapsed in 1992, the Maastricht Treaty and the European Union (EU), the expansion from 9 countries to 12, 15 and then 25, the Euro single currency and the European Constitution.
Can you people across The Pond not see where you are heading?