chicago.indymedia.org
Author

NAFTA Hurts Mexico & U.S.

Date Created

03 Jan 2012

Date Edited

03 Jan 2012 12:29:55 PM

Part of promoting non-interventionist foreign policy is allowing for foreign nations to have self-determination and autonomy in their own economy. The greatest limiting factor to achieving democracy and self-determination in any nation is an unstable economy caused by unequal trade laws. This inequality between trade partners can occur because of different resource qualities or quantities or as a result of trade agreements that benefit one nation above another.
There are currently several “free” trade agreements labeled World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that were in existence since the early nineties. Both NAFTA and the WTO impose restrictions on domestic protections of workers and the ecosystem. While the WTO is a global free trade agreement NAFTA includes Canada, U.S. and Mexico. Several other notable politicians including Dennis Kucinich (D) and Ross Perot (I) have joined Sen. Ron Paul in efforts to first warn and then attempt to repeal NAFTA. This is truly a tripartisan effort to create change for the better by admitting to our nation’s collective mistake of implementing NAFTA and the WTO. Better to admit that we were wrong to join NAFTA and now can change our path than to continue making the same mistakes and ensuring our self-destruction and also dragging everyone else along with us. After all, neither NAFTA nor the WTO agreements were written in stone tablets and we are not under orders from anyone to continue on this negative path to failure.

In order to understand what repealing NAFTA would accomplish we need to understand what problems have been caused by implementation of NAFTA and also the WTO. We can focus on the example of Mexico with the understanding that parallel processes occur with the WTO in other nations in Asia and Africa. Prior to the passage of NAFTA there were many small farms remaining in both Mexico and in the U.S. Midwest, though the trend since WW2 was towards consolidation into larger agribusinesses that no longer resembled the original small farm model that could be tended by less than ten people and did not require input of intensive petrochemical derived fertilizers and pesticides. This process was occurring simultaneously both here and in Mexico, though it is safe to generalize that the greater availability of petrochemicals in the U.S. would have made the process of consolidation towards agribusiness swifter on U.S. farms. However, the passage of NAFTA began to swing the balance of consolidation into agribusiness faster on the Mexican side. This was accomplished by using NAFTA free trade bylaws to prevent protective tariffs from helping Mexican maize (corn) farmers from being undersold by imported corn. When the taxpayer subsidized corn grown by consolidated U.S. agribusiness corporations began flooding the Mexican markets, the local small farmers were unable to sell their corn for such a low price and still remain in business. Slowly but surely only a few years after NAFTA was passed into law the signs of Mexican farms going out of business and land being sold for cheap were everywhere. Their land was bought up by agribusiness corporations and the once independent small farmers of Mexico were now landless peasants forced to either try to survive in dangerous Mexican cities or attempt the northern passage to the U.S. through miles of harsh deserts. This is clearly not a good choice, as both options could result in death. This is the outcome of physical desperation caused by economic instability, and the evidence points to NAFTA as the primary culprit in creating the landlessness and poverty that afflicts the people of Mexico.

Once people comprehend that the source of illegal immigration is mostly from NAFTA induced poverty and landlessness, there are few realistic options to solve the myriad of problems caused by illegal immigration besides repealing the initial source the problem. All the other options proposed by the status quo politicians such as border walls, more agents, or amnesty lack the ability to solve the problems because they deftly dance around the source and only provide temporary quick-fix solutions that will only become expensive problems once they fail to work as proponents claim they would.

Generally we get a two-pronged approach from the establishment candidates; Republicans call for walls, camps and more police while Democrats call for amnesty, free schooling and other expenses. The claims made by status quo Republicans is that the walls, fences, detention camps and police will “teach those Mexicans a lesson” by discouraging them to remain here illegally. However, when given the harsh economic reality of life in Mexico, the threats of detention, barbed wire fences and other police state deterrents becomes surmountable in the face of starvation and death. The claims made by status quo Democrats is that we can “give Mexicans a better life here” by granting everyone amnesty and providing schooling to the several hundred thousand or more undocumented Mexican workers without displacing any domestic workers or lower income students in the process. It is certainly admirable to listen to the Democrats speak of the virtues of the hardworking undocumented Mexican farmworkers, though it is unfortunate that these noble Democrats besides Dennis Kucinich cannot bother to take the time to explain to the people of the U.S. that NAFTA induced poverty is the reason that the Mexicans come to the U.S. and submit to virtual slavery on the agribusiness plantations.

Given that the status quo Republicans and Democrats both cling to their false theories with grips tighter than a vice, we can dispel some of the standard myths perpetuated by the status quo Democrats and Republicans in advance of the debates.

Favorite Status Quo Republican Myth #1; Border walls, fences, police and detention camps are effective tools at preventing and deterring illegal immigration across the border.

Continued below...