In response to ?No Need to Nix NAFTA,? March 5, by Nathan Braun:
I came away surprised at Mr. Braun?s reasoning for supporting the unpopular agreement, but it was the conclusion that NAFTA was good for the United States that, frankly, required a rebuttal because of how terribly false it was.
The contention of many NAFTA backers was that any job loss would be made up with increased U.S. exports to Mexico. Sounded great, only the idea was untested, as it would be the first time in which three nations with sizable differences in development, economies and legal and environmental standards attempted to integrate. It was not similar to the European Union trade policy, in which nations invested heavily in their less developed neighbors and insisted they meet common standards for trade and the environment, creating a balanced playing field for the continent. NAFTA attempted to do this type of integration on the cheap, while ignoring the planning and social investment that Europe has used to ensure success in all nations involved.
This may explain the undermining of environmental and labor rights that nearly derailed NAFTA from the beginning. Groups such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace opposed the agreement, as it would allow manufacturers to get away from protection laws by exporting operations to Mexico. Furthermore, corporately funded groups like the Natural Resource Defense Council feared that the U.S. and Canada would have to abandon environmental laws, as corporations would now be able to challenge them as ?unfair barriers to trade.?
The fears of these groups came to fruition. In a 2003 study, the Economic Policy Institute found that NAFTA has simply not been kind to the environment. Pollution from diesel trucks in the border region, the decrease of Mexican environmental protection spending by 45 percent, as well as clear-cutting of tropical forests for struggling farmers trying to remain competitive has left a definite mark on the earth.
What is even more concerning is that people are forced to adjust to something that has been so detrimental to their livelihoods and their employers. More than 500,000 American workers were certified for the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance program for losing jobs because of outsourcing. Since many workers didn’t participate or were not eligible for the program, it’s safe to say the number is significantly higher, due to the fact that even when it covered someone in an aircraft engine plant, it didn’t cover parts suppliers or restaurants who depended on its existence.
These losses may have been acceptable had better paying jobs been created, immigration been controlled or environmental standards been created. In fact, in the same 2003 study by the EPI, NAFTA was found to have caused 879,000 more job losses than gains, as well as the demise of industry giant Bethlehem Steel. NAFTA is also responsible for the current health care crises in the auto industry, especially with General Motors.
Don’t be fooled by Mr. Braun’s assertion that Democrats are beholden to NAFTA since it was President Clinton who signed the agreement. Majority Leader Dick Gephardt and Majority Whip David Bonior ? along with many Democrats, Ross Perot supporters and even protectionist Republicans ? opposed the agreement.
I hope Mr. Braun and the leading presidential candidates can realize how much of a disaster this trade agreement has been for our country.
Michael M. Johnson
MATC Sophomore, political science and social welfare
