Thread: Report: 'Free trade' enslaves poor nations

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Report: 'Free trade' enslaves poor nations
Globalization benefits wealthy exporters at expense of farmers, workers, says Oxfam
Posted: March 31, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON – So-called "free trade" agreements are not free at all, victimizing the poor while benefiting the wealthy, says a new report by Oxfam International, the coalition fighting poverty, suffering and social injustice around the world.

Nevertheless, a trend toward regional agreements and globalization continues, with an average of two bilateral or multilateral investment treaties being signed every week, according to the study.

"In an increasingly globalized world, these agreements seek to benefit rich-country exporters and firms at the expense of poor farmers and workers, with grave implications for the environment and development," the report said.

There are more than 250 regional and bilateral agreements in place today and many more are in the works, according to Oxfam. These treaties already govern more than 30 percent of world trade.

Emily Jones, author of the Oxfam report, pointed to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, as a case study.

Her report said NAFTA has brought 1.3 million job losses to Mexico in 10 years. Other studies have explained how cheap agricultural imports from U.S. agribusiness concerns have made it nearly impossible for small farmers to compete. Many reportedly have been forced from their land and become illegal migrant workers in the U.S.

In fact, the implementation of NAFTA coincides with the largest wave of illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico in history.

Jones said some studies show Mexico's real wages in 2004 were less than in 1994.

That is exactly the effect of the so-called "free trade" agreements cited in the Oxfam report.

"When Mexico liberalized financial services in 1993 in preparation for NAFTA, foreign ownership of the banking system increased to 86 percent in seven years, but lending to Mexican businesses dropped from 10 percent of gross domestic product to 0.3 percent, depriving poor people living in rural areas of vital sources of credit," Jones reported.

Some question whether agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization should actually be characterized as "free trade" agreements because of their complexity. The agreements represent tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations, whereas "free trade" traditionally meant simply an end to tariffs.

As WND previously reported, some experts believe Mexico's political, economic and social instability is a direct result of NAFTA.

NAFTA has driven many legitimate Mexican farmers out of business, and many have turned to drug cultivation, charges Charles Bowden, author of "Down By The River," and other acclaimed books about the drug business.

"It's one of the unintended consequences of NAFTA," he says.

He is not alone. Ask many Mexican illegal aliens why they make the trek north and they will tell you about their inability to make it in their own country as small farmers – since NAFTA and the increase of duty-free U.S. products into the country.

In effect, some economists see the cheap labor flooding into America helping the U.S. agribusiness concerns squeeze out Mexican family farmers. The more smaller farms collapse, the more migrant workers trek north and the more cheap labor is available to big U.S. farmers. It's a vicious cycle, they say.

In addition, with the drug crisis raging in Mexico and even threatening its national security, some are pointing to the "protections" NAFTA has provided to the drug runners.

Up to three-quarters of cocaine entering the U.S. now comes via Mexico – as well as most of its marijuana. In 1996, the U.S. and Mexican governments agreed to start training Mexican soldiers in the U.S. for the "war on drugs." These elite commandos were called "Los Zetas." They have now switched sides and are working as a paramilitary security detail for the drug cartels.

According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, over the past decade, Colombia-based drug groups have allowed Mexico-based trafficking organizations to play an increasing role in the U.S. cocaine trade. In the 1980s, Colombia's drug dealers used the drug smugglers in Mexico to transport cocaine shipments across the Southwest border into the U.S. but retook possession of the narcotics once the transporters arrived in the U.S. After the seizure of nearly 21 metric tons of cocaine in 1989, the Colombians changed the way they did business and allowed Mexico-based transportation groups to receive up to half the cocaine shipment they smuggled in exchange for their services.

According to the DEA, "virtually all heroin produced in Mexico and South America is destined for the U.S. market." This reflects a big increase since NAFTA.

Analysts estimate that Mexican drug gangs make $3 billion to $30 billion annually by smuggling cocaine to the U.S. and have police, politicians and judges from both sides on their payrolls.

In addition to being blamed for the exploding drug crisis, NAFTA is also being blamed in some quarters for the rise in illegal immigration from Mexico into the U.S.

Former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda made some candid assessments in 2005 at a border symposium on the expansion of NAFTA-style agreements in the Americas and Europe.

According to Castaneda, who is running for the Mexican presidency as an independent, "NAFTA was oversold." There were divided views as to whether it accelerated moves toward human rights in Mexico, a country that has only recently emerged from one-party rule. On the economic level, productivity in Mexico remained "flat."

"NAFTA has not been a factor of significant economic growth." And while it was supposed to reduce illegal immigration, quite the opposite happened, he said. "There's more immigration from Mexico to the U.S. today than ever before in history."

With rising immigration came increased security risks, he acknowledged.

"The first al-Qaida guy that they catch coming in from Mexico, and we have a major problem in Mexico," he said.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54965

Her report said NAFTA has brought 1.3 million job losses to Mexico in 10 years. Other studies have explained how cheap agricultural imports from U.S. agribusiness concerns have made it nearly impossible for small farmers to compete. Many reportedly have been forced from their land and become illegal migrant workers in the U.S.

It would appear that NAFTA is as bad for Mexico as it is for the United States. How do we go about getting rid of NAFTA.

NAFTA was actually beneficial to both countries. The assumptions made by Oxfam are wrong in order to benefit from NAFTA required changing old habits. Farmers in Mexico instead of coming here illegaly should have downstreamed out of selling a raw commodity for their cash income to more high value added end products. Instead of doing that our weak immigration enforcement allowed them to give up on their home countries and come here.

Richard, what about the jobs that America has lost to Mexico? NAFTA has only increased the number of illegals entering America and drugs smugglered into America.

The only people that NAFTA benefited were the wealthy on both sides of the border.

That is like saying that if a steel mill, an auto plant or a car engine factory had moved to Mexico that we lost those. All three of those inventions were made in other countries which might well have complained that they had come here. If another country can produce something we want to buy less expensively than we can and they are hiring voluntary labor it makes sense that we import. What we should do is that leave industry and hire the Americans that formerly were employed in it to produce something else instead. We have had corporations trying to have it both ways. We have seen some production move away creating income overseas which might go into our exports. However instead of recognizing the interest of the displaced in benefitting from jobs created here corporations have been hiring immigrants even if the immigrants are not here with our nation's permission.

Originally Posted by Richard

That is like saying that if a steel mill, an auto plant or a car engine factory had moved to Mexico that we lost those. All three of those inventions were made in other countries which might well have complained that they had come here. If another country can produce something we want to buy less expensively than we can and they are hiring voluntary labor it makes sense that we import. What we should do is that leave industry and hire the Americans that formerly were employed in it to produce something else instead. We have had corporations trying to have it both ways. We have seen some production move away creating income overseas which might go into our exports. However instead of recognizing the interest of the displaced in benefitting from jobs created here corporations have been hiring immigrants even if the immigrants are not here with our nation's permission.

Well, yeah. In the grand scheme of things, NAFTA sux. It is part of an over-all trade strategy that the government and corporate America has agreed to that sux for America. They want to outsource nearly EVERY form of production with our insane trade policies. There's not much the Third World won't produce for cheaper. All what if's aside, we have lost up to 1 million manufacturing jobs because of NAFTA, and our trade debt with Mexico has increased nine-fold. Meanwhile, manufacturing wages in Mexico decreased 25%, and more Mexicans are flooding into this country than ever.