Last weeK I dashed off a criticism of some "talking points' against NAFTA fast-fastacking that had been posted on PEN-L. I argued they blamed Mexicans for increased bad food and (illegal) drugs in the US; that blaming NAFTA for job losses let capitalism off the hook; and that citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico was hypocritical. I thought these were yuppie-Perot reasons for opposing NAFTA. - Several people replied that it was unregulated markets in Mexico (not Mexicans) that were being blamed for bad food. Max Sawicky complained my "translation" mirrored the mainstream media's characterization of anti-NAFTA sentiment as xenophobic and racist. Unfortunately I do think this characterization of the *campaign* against NAFTA is (partly) true. Not that the pro-NAFTA forces are any less guilty, and worse. Both frameworks are rotten. We should reject, not support Perot, Buchanan type arguments by clearly opposing NAFTA on the basis of the interests of working people in both (and all) countries. Complete silence on one side is complicity with the dominant voice. Michael Pereleman noted that it is not blaming Americans to assert that WTO regulations make it difficult to keep steroids and growth hormones out of food in European countries. I'm not sure how this point connects to NAFTA on Mexico. Should be oppose increasing access to out markets by all countries whose health and safety regulations are less stringent than our's (i.e. most of the world)? Are pesticides really the problem or is capitalism the problem? I agree with most of Erik Leaver's points on food (and I was relieved that apparantly I was not the only one to feel the talking points were one-sided). In my opinion, another good food-related reason to oppose NAFTA is how it has helped push indigenous farmers off communally-owned land in Mexico. I think many farmers in the US, who are also being pushed off their land by the banks and agribusiness can identify with this. I also like it because it gets out of the usual framework of thinking of our interests as consumers. No one commented on the arguments about NAFTA reductions in border inspections being responsible for more illegal drugs in the US. It is hard to *not* translate this into a call for more border cops, inspections, searches, etc. with all this means for immigrants, refugees and ordinary working people. This is the Perot-Buchanan-Democrat-Republican line. For a world without borders! I had said that "blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine". Max Sawicky replied: "Self-evident rubish. It implies there would be jobs without NAFTA that are gone as a result of NAFTA. Nobody thinks the left's job is done if NAFTA goes down. Sheesh." I'm still scratching my head on this one. The (original) claim was that "...NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. jobs." NAFTA caused those job losses. If you *don't mention* the role of capitalism, corporate greed, etc. they are not included as causes. No NAFTA, no job losses caused, no problem. It seems to me Max's approach is to wait until NAFTA is killed by Ross Perot arguments and *then* get on with the left's job of explaining how rotton capitalism is. Erik Leaver posted some points about the tendentious use of statistics on NAFTA's job effects. We had the same in Canada about the impact of Canada-US 'free' trade: some anti 'free' traders made wild claims about job losses due to its implementation and completely ignored the effect of the recession or capitalist crisis. When this line became untenable the fallback was a near-conspiracy theory that the recession was caused by the Bank of Canada's high interest policy ...implemented at the behest of *US* corporations. Its not domestic capitalists but foreign capitalists that are blamed, in other words not capitalism at all, but foreigners. I had complained about the 'border ecology' argument. Shouldn't we favour a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market in the world? Are jobs for Mexican workers only OK if the pollution stays away from out border? Or should they all locate in Mexico City? I'm sure we all favour rational, balanced, minimally-polluting economic development in Mexico, but they can't wait for world socialism for us to support it, and to do so without giving up anything on protecting ecology everywhere. Another point to link our interests in the US and Canada with those in Mexico against these trade deals: the ne-nationalization of Mexico's petroleum industry, which is another blow against their right to develop independently of imperialism. ------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
