Regarding the ongoing EU-versus-NAFTA discussion: What has been the experience of the trinational labor and environmental bodies established by NAFTA? As I recall, the Clinton administration appointed a number of left-of-center individuals to the environmental organization, including persons connected with the Texas Center of Policy Studies. Has anything useful transpired in these settings? These organizations could be the protoplasm from which some sort of continental government emerges in North America (although maybe after a zillion years of evolution! [;)]. Given the reluctance of many persons in all three countries to relinquish national sovereignty on such an overt leve, it seems unlikely that such a government will develop any time soon. However, it took only 15 years to go from Mexican President Lo'pez Portillo's toying with (and rejecting) the idea of a free-trade agreement between Mexico and the United States to NAFTA (with the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement as a crucial middle step). Granting Maggie Coleman's important point that the EU is somewhat "grounded" democratically and that NAFTA essentially is not, how many PEN-Lers think it is a worthwhile political project to push for the creation of some democratic, trinational institution in North America? Some of us (including me) would like at the very least that the world trading system be modified to allow countries to pursue alternative environmental and social policies without fear of having them classified as non-tariff barriers and dismantled. This type of objective does not seem to fit neatly within an agenda of creating a continental government. Steven Zahniser [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Although she is not a businessperson, Carla Hills obviously had great input into NAFTA.
