Thanks for the stat's. Darryl
----- Original Message ----- From: mcandreb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 2:05 PM Subject: [Futurework] FWD: NAFTA: North American Deal Dismal After a Decade > > Anybody surprised? And ten years from now? I'm with Michael Gurstein on > this New Years' prediction. > > Brian McAndrews > > ----------------------------------- > > > > > Published on Saturday, December 27, 2003 by the Inter Press Service > NAFTA: North American Deal Dismal After a Decade > by Emad Mekay > > WASHINGTON - After 10 years a deal that all sides say transformed trade > and investment rules in North America has still produced far fewer > positive results than originally promised, according to its critics. > > "Had they (original promises) come true, NAFTA would have been an > enormous boom and we would all be cracking champagne," said Lori > Wallach, director of the global trade watch program at Washington-based > Public Citizen, a consumer rights group. > > "But instead we have got the 10-year record and it's pretty damn grim." > > When NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) was being sold to > the U.S. Congress and the public in Canada, Mexico and the United States > in the early 1990s, its promoters promised the deal would create > hundreds of thousands of high-wage U.S. jobs, raise living standards in > all three countries and improve environmental conditions and transform > Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming economy. > > But NAFTA's real-life damage to jobs, wages and the environment after 10 > years has made many people in North America furious about the trade > policies the deal was built upon (policies that provide the foundation > for subsequent agreements such as the forthcoming Free Trade Area of the > Americas, FTAA). > > "NAFTA's 10-year record demonstrates that under the NAFTA model most > people in the three countries were losers, while only a few of the > largest corporations who helped write NAFTA were the major winners," > Wallach said. > > Thanks to the deal, which celebrates its anniversary Jan. 1, major > companies -- like auto makers General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- can > set up shop in Mexico, employ cheap labor in that country and then > export the finished products to Canada and the United States. > > NAFTA rules also limit each country's domestic policies to deal with > issues ranging from environmental health and food safety to banking and > truck safety regulation. > > Under the unprecedented investor rights sewn into the deal, investors > are allowed to demand compensation for "indirect expropriation", which > has been interpreted to mean any government act -- including those > directed at public health and the environment -- that diminishes the > value of a foreign investment. > > Following one such suit, the Mexican government was ordered in August > 2000 to pay nearly 17 million dollars to a California firm that was > denied a permit from a Mexican municipality to operate a hazardous waste > treatment facility in an environmentally sensitive location. > > U.S. workers were promised 170,000 additional jobs in each of NAFTA's > first 10 years, based on the deal increasing the trade surplus with > Mexico and lowering the pre-NAFTA trade deficit with Canada. > > But instead of the surplus, the United States now runs an average > 37-billion-dollar annual deficit with Mexico, and has lost close to > three million manufacturing jobs. > > Under one government program for displaced workers, the NAFTA Trade > Adjustment System -- for which only a relatively small number of the > deal's potential victims could qualify -- 525,000 U.S. workers were > certified as NAFTA casualties because their jobs were transferred to > Mexico. > > According to Public Citizen, despite the economic growth of the 1990s, > U.S. real wages are still below 1972 levels, while income inequality has > skyrocketed because of the shift from manufacturing jobs to employment > in services, where wages are far less. > > According to the Institute of Policy Studies, NAFTA has also had a > detrimental impact on the ability of U.S. workers to fight for better > wages and working conditions. U.S. employers now often threaten to move > to Mexico and other low-wage countries in order to fight unions and > restrain wages. > > The use of such threats in union organizing drives increased from about > 50 percent in the early 1990s to 62 percent in 1998 and 68 percent in > 1999, says the Washington-based institute. > > The U.S. government points to different figures to buttress its pro > free-trade arguments. According to data from the U.S. Trade > Representative office, total trade among the NAFTA countries more than > doubled between 1993 and 2002. > > It says foreign direct investment by NAFTA partners in the three > countries jumped from 136.9 billion dollars in 1993 to 299.2 billion > dollars in 2000. > > Last week, the World Bank also said NAFTA was, overall, a positive deal, > especially for Mexico. For example, it triggered productivity growth, as > the country needed only about one-half the time to adopt foreign > technology during the span of the deal than it did before. > > But according to a recent report by the Global Resource Action Center > for the Environment (GRACE), NAFTA has displaced 1.75 million Mexican > farmers from their land, forcing them to migrate to the cities or the > United States. > > According to Lauren Carlsen, director of the Americas program of the > Inter-hemispheric Resource Center, an advocacy group based in Mexico > City, farm prices -- especially for maize -- have plummeted during the > deal's lifetime in the face of heftily subsidized imports from the > United States. > > Incomes in Mexico have also nose-dived. According to the Center for > Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, in 10 years income > per person has grown by only nine percent in Mexico, about one-fifth of > the growth in the 1960s and 1970s. > > "No economist can honestly call that a success," said Mark Weisbrot > co-director of the CEPR. > > NAFTA was also promoted as a route to good jobs and improved living > conditions, especially via maquiladoras, companies that are permitted to > operate duty-free in nations that provide them with cheap labor -- in > the NAFTA case, U.S. firms setting up in Mexico. > > "Instead, we got low wages, sexual harassment, environmental destruction > and birth defects," said Marth Ojeda, director of the Coalition for > Justice in the Maquiladoras, herself a maquiladora worker. > > "Most maquiladora workers are very young, between 16 and 25, because > their eyes, backs and hands haven't given out yet -- their hours are so > long that their youth passes without seeing the sun," added Ojeda. > > Workers and government services in Canada, the third NAFTA partner, did > not fare any better. > > Canada's former prime minister Brian Mulroney called the deal a "cold > shower" at its inception, something the country needed to go from a > so-called welfare state to one primed to compete in the international > sphere. > > But 10 years later, many critics say the business community has actually > exploited the deal to push for cuts in social programs, arguing they > were necessary to compete with the lower costs faced by U.S. businesses, > operating in a nation with generally lower levels of worker protection. > > The clearest example of that, critics say, is the impact is the scaling > back of Canada's unemployment insurance. > > According to the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, the percentage > of unemployed workers who qualified for this scheme (now known as > "employment insurance") dropped from 87 percent in 1989 to only 39 > percent in 2001. > > "We have lowered social spending so much that we have moved from being > first in the world in the United Nations human development index to > number eight last year," said Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council > of Canadians, the country's largest public advocacy organization. > > "And three target groups have been hit the worst: the unemployed, > low-income earners and the elderly," she added. "It's pretty well time > we stopped thinking that we are a kinder and gentler nation." > > If there is one major lesson of NAFTA that many analysts from all three > countries agree on, says the Institute of Policy Studies, it is that > "there is no guaranteed link between trade and investment liberalization > and improvements for workers or the environment". > > 2003 � IPS > > ### > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
