TLC=Free
Trade Agreement [Granma, Cuba]
Excelsior,
Mexico
The Trouble
With NAFTA: It's Far Too Feeble …
"There are no institutions
that can serve as engines to boost integration.
… the groups have never worked and the
commission is nothing but an annual meeting of trade ministers. And of course,
they don't have the clout to make demands on the federal governments of the
three countries."
By Rafael Fernández de Castro
Translated By Barbara Howe
April 24, 2008
Mexico
- Excelsior - Original Article (Spanish)
Judging from the results of
the recent summit of North American leaders in New Orleans, the idea of the
framers of the North American Free Trade Agreement to create an economic
community in this region is beginning to fade. What was a bold and
revolutionary idea which contributed so greatly to the prosperity of the
peoples of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada is becoming just a historical footnote.
In New Orleans, the leaders
of North America pledged to continue to defend NAFTA and to resolve the
bottlenecks in the transport situation of Mexico, where the letter of the
treaty has yet to be fulfilled. In addition, they agreed to a timid
homogenization of industry standards.
[Editor's Note: NAFTA
requires that all roads in the U.S., Canada and Mexico be opened to carriers
from all three countries. Canadian trucking companies have had full access to
U.S. roads since 2001, but due to "safety and smuggling" concerns,
Mexican trucks have only been allowed about 20 miles inside the country at
certain border crossings where they would then transfer loads to U.S. drivers.]
One of the official trilateral
'meetings' between the leaders …
In New Orleans
there were two types of meetings: bilateral and trilateral. On one hand, the
Mexican President along with his counterparts in the U.S. and Canada. And
secondly, there were four trilateral meetings: a dinner, a breakfast, two
social occasions and two workshops - one with entrepreneurs and the other with
Secretaries of State responsible for security and trade.
The bilateral meeting between
the United States and Canada had a tone of strategic partnership. Bush
expressed his gratitude to his counterpart Harper's decision to keep troops in
Afghanistan and help other allies like France continue to back up the U.S.
invasion. At the meeting with Mexico there was no agreement even on a basic and
inexpensive plan - the Merida Initiative 
- which will soon be up for discussion at the
U.S. Capitol. In North America there continues to exist two intense bilateral
relations (U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico), a more distant bilateral relation
(Canada-Mexico) and an incipient trilateral relationship.
There are four reasons why I am
inclined to believe that the North American economic community is evaporating
and will soon be on the shelf of history. However, a decision in New Orleans
with an eye toward transforming the current mechanism, the Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America and converting it into an annual summit of
leaders from the region, to begin in Mexico in 2009, permits me to maintain a
small amount of hope.
There are no institutions
that can serve as engines to boost integration. The negotiators of NAFTA were
either optimistic or naive not to create institutions that by stages, could
foster greater integration. Mexicans agreed to the premise of U.S. negotiators
- that NAFTA should be a mechanism of the market and not create unnecessary
bureaucracies. The only thing that was created were 22 workgroups and a
commission on free trade. The groups have never worked and the commission is
nothing but an annual meeting of trade ministers. And of course, they don't
have the clout to make demands on the federal governments of the three
countries.
The United States has turned
inward and is becoming a wary empire. Two huge clouds threaten its social health
and relations with its southern neighbor: trade protectionism and racist,
anti-immigrant sentiments toward Mexicans. The United States, where fear has
become the best electoral weapon - used so effectively by Bush in 2004 and 2006
and now being utilized by Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton - is quite a
ways from the optimistic nation that negotiated NAFTA with its two neighbors.
Canada has preferred to
maintain a special relationship with the United States rather than risk a
trilateralization of the terms. The Canadians have made clear that their
prosperity depends on maintaining trade and investment with its neighbor. But
that conviction often turns to paranoia. Why not consider a true North American
security perimeter? Why not have real homogenization of North American
industry? Ottawa has two speeds in its North American relationships: accelerate
with its southern neighbor and put the brakes on its relations with Mexico and
trilateral initiatives.
Mexico is adrift. Already
well into the 21st century and despite the trade with the United States that
has been the engine of our limited economic achievements of the past fifteen
years, we continue to resort to the nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries.
This is a disgrace. There is no sense of urgency in most of our political
class. While China continues to advance like a steaming locomotive, much of our
political class thinks of nothing but maintaining their perks, such as members
of the PRD or the New Alliance that cling to the gift of partisan subsidies.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Calderón, Bush and Harper
opened a window of opportunity when they decided to hold in 2009 - not a
Security and Prosperity Partnership summit - but a truly North American summit
[of all leaders in the region]. Calderon’s government has a year to prepare a
list of proposals that won't be rejected by the next tenant of the White House
- a proposal as bold and as intelligent as NAFTA was in its time. Beyond that,
Calderon has a year to put our house in order and to show that the Mexican
economy remains attractive so as to arouse the interest of U.S. and Canadians
in drawing closer to Mexico and deepening the economic partnership.
rfcastro@itam.mx
CLICK HERE FOR SPANISH
VERSION
[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US May 1, 10:57pm]
