FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Extending NAFTA’s Reach

by LAURA CARLSEN

Beyond the vague feel-good rhetoric about a “prosperous neighborhood” and “common commitments” the Canadian, U.S., and Mexican leaders each seemed to have his particular agenda. Canada fears another economically disastrous border closing like the one following the 2001 terrorist attacks and wants to assure it doesn’t happen again. Bush emphasized the corporate wish-list of eliminating remaining barriers and harmonizing regulations. Calderon fears that Mexico is losing its NAFTA edge in the U.S. market and called for forming a regional trade bloc to compete with other regions of the world. No joint policy decisions or objectives were announced.

No wonder the public’s confused.
A Short History

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched in Waco, Texas in March 2005. The heads of state of the three NAFTA countries, other government officials, and business groups have met periodically to hammer out agreements to speed up integration and increase security. This has been done with almost no public input or Congressional oversight.

Since the SPP is not a law or a treaty or even a signed agreement, there are no formal mechanisms of accountability built in. It is essentially a “gentleman’s agreement” between the executive branches and major corporations in the three nations.

This is what has people worried. Largely unknown to the public, the SPP has spawned numerous working groups, reports, and recommendations. In 2006, the private sector was brought in with the formation of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). This body is made up of business representatives from industries involved in intercontinental trade and investment, including Wal-Mart, Lockheed Martin, the Mexican Foreign Trade Council, Canada’s Suncor Energy, and others. The Council does not include representatives of labor, environmental, or civil society organizations.

Government officials have justified the secrecy by stating that the SPP is merely a forum for refining rules and standards for transborder transactions. However, the little that is known about it reveals that some major issues are on the table.

Many of those go way beyond what was passed by North American legislatures under NAFTA. They include extraterritorial rights over natural resources, extension of the Bush administration’s vastly unpopular counter-terrorism agenda to Canada and Mexico, liberalization of financial services, and most likely a billion-dollar counternarcotics aid package to Mexico.

Although rarely identified as such, some SPP recommendations have already popped up in policies and regulation reforms. These include accelerating environmentally damaging oil production in Mexico and Canada, and “harmonizing” national standards so they sing to the tune of corporate profits rather than consumer protection.

For example, Canada has agreed to raise the amount of pesticide residues allowed in some foods and Mexico has adopted a counter-terrorism law that contradicts its own foreign policy principles. In the United States, proposed highway construction to facilitate intercontinental trade has angered environmentalists and local populations and raised questions about what exactly is the overall “vision” that the SPP purports to have.

Many of the recommendations of the SPP will have a long-term impact on citizens’ lives. While opposition has focused on resource use, consumer norms, and infrastructure, the security component of the partnership may prove to be the most far-reaching of all.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership was born in the post-9/11 era, when President Bush sought to extend U.S. counter-terrorism strategies to Mexico and Canada, and Homeland Security became a major player in the trilateral relationship. The counternarcotics proposal falls under the rubric of this new area. The package would include the delivery of U.S. arms and surveillance equipment, sophisticated espionage programs, and training for Mexico’s police and army.

Although negotiations on security issues have been among the most tightly guarded, immigration crackdowns on Mexico’s southern border and Canada’s “no-fly” list of people banned from air travel were most likely negotiated in the context of the SPP.
The Forgotten Issues of Integration

As the SPP extends its purview, the most pressing challenges to trinational integration have been inexplicably left off the agenda. Immigration, which has experienced a two-fold increase since NAFTA, has been discarded as too politically sensitive in the United States to discuss as a regional issue-despite the fact that integration processes in other parts of the world have recognized that labor flows are a central issue of regional integration.

Calderon reportedly expressed concern over harsh new employer sanctions in the United States and the “void” left in the immigration law following the recent failure of the U.S. Congress to pass reforms that effectively deal with the estimated 12 million undocumented U.S. residents. However, no mention was made of measures to reduce deaths and human rights violations on the shared U.S.-Mexico border, provide compensation funds to Mexico’s displaced sectors, or regularize Mexican immigrants in U.S. communities.

Another taboo subject was the total elimination of tariffs on corn and beans in Mexico, slated for January of 2008 under NAFTA’s agricultural chapter. Mexican small farmers have demanded renegotiation of the chapter, charging it will drive them out of business and increase out-migration. But according to government representatives, the three governments decided not to take up the issue in Montebello.

Nor did those driving the latest stage of regional integration deign to deal with urgent matters such as the impact of NAFTA on job loss and job quality in the United States, or the growing monopolistic control of production and markets exercised by transnational corporations-a subject understandably off the table of a “competitiveness council” led by global market gobblers like Wal-Mart.
Voices of Dissent

Citizen groups have mobilized in all three countries to demand information and protest the priorities of “deep integration” designed in the upper spheres of commerce and government. Canadian citizen groups on hand to protest the summit proceedings were met with tear gas, pepper spray, and police provocateurs.

Elected representatives have also objected to the secrecy of the SPP. In May the Mexican legislature passed a resolution that requires President Calderon to send the Senate a detailed report on all agreements that government officials have assumed in SPP working groups. The U.S. House of Representatives approved an amendment that prohibits the use of Department of Transportation funds in SPP working groups until the Congress has reviewed and assessed the SPP agenda. Although this amendment was rejected in the Senate, several more anti-SPP resolutions have been presented. A motion that calls for public consultations on the SPP has been tabled in the Canadian Parliament.

The United States, Canada, and Mexico trade a total of $883 billion under NAFTA. The three nations clearly need mechanisms to assure that these flows are safe, orderly, and mutually beneficial.

The SPP, however, has surreptitiously proceeded well beyond the regulatory mandate into areas that threaten the sovereignty of the three nations and will have long-term effects on the lives of their citizens. This has happened not only without citizen participation, but also in many cases without citizens’ knowledge.

Trilateral decisions that affect entire populations should be open to the public and subject to citizen review. The priority should always be placed on increasing the long-term well-being of the people. As democracies we cannot allow the course of North American integration to be dictated by a closed group of corporate and cabinet representatives.

At stake is the future of our three nations, and the continent we share.

LAURA CARLSEN is the director of the Americas Program at www.americaspolicy.org in Mexico City, where she has been a writer and political analyst for more than two decades.

 

Laura Carlsen is the director of the Americas Program in Mexico City and advisor to Just Associates (JASS) .

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 23, 2016
Diana Johnstone
Hillary and the Glass Ceilings Illusion
Bill Quigley
Race and Class Gap Widening: Katrina Pain Index 2016 by the Numbers
Ted Rall
Trump vs. Clinton: It’s All About the Debates
Eoin Higgins
Will Progressive Democrats Ever Support a Third Party Candidate?
Kenneth J. Saltman
Wall Street’s Latest Public Sector Rip-Off: Five Myths About Pay for Success
Binoy Kampmark
Labouring Hours: Sweden’s Six-Hour Working Day
John Feffer
The Globalization of Trump
Gwendolyn Mink – Felicia Kornbluh
Time to End “Welfare as We Know It”
Medea Benjamin
Congress Must Take Action to Block Weapon Sales to Saudi Arabia
Halyna Mokrushyna
Political Writer, Daughter of Ukrainian Dissident, Detained and Charged in Ukraine
Manuel E. Yepe
Tourism and Religion Go Hand-in-Hand in the Caribbean
ED ADELMAN
Belted by Trump
Thomas Knapp
War: The Islamic State and Western Politicians Against the Rest of Us
Nauman Sadiq
Shifting Alliances: Turkey, Russia and the Kurds
Rivera Sun
Active Peace: Restoring Relationships While Making Change
August 22, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary Clinton: The Anti-Woman ‘Feminist’
Robert Hunziker
Arctic Death Rattle
Norman Solomon
Clinton’s Transition Team: a Corporate Presidency Foretold
Ralph Nader
Hillary’s Hubris: Only Tell the Rich for $5000 a Minute!
Russell Mokhiber
Save the Patients, Cut Off the Dick!
Steven M. Druker
The Deceptions of the GE Food Venture
Elliot Sperber
Clean, Green, Class War: Bill McKibben’s Shortsighted ‘War on Climate Change’
Binoy Kampmark
Claims of Exoneration: The Case of Slobodan Milošević
Walter Brasch
The Contradictions of Donald Trump
Michael Donnelly
Body Shaming Trump: Statue of Limitations
Weekend Edition
August 19, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Hillary and the War Party
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Prime Time Green
Andrew Levine
Hillary Goes With the Flow
Dave Lindorff
New York Times Shames Itself by Attacking Wikileaks’ Assange
Gary Leupp
Could a Russian-Led Coalition Defeat Hillary’s War Plans?
Conn Hallinan
Dangerous Seas: China and the USA
Joshua Frank
Richard Holbrooke and the Obama Doctrine
Margaret Kimberley
Liberal Hate for the Green Party
John Davis
Lost Peoples of the Lake
Alex Richardson-Price
The Fight for a Six Hour Workday
John Wight
Why Palestine Matters, Even on the Pitch
Brian Cloughley
Hillary Clinton’s War Policy
Patrick Cockburn
A Battle to the Death in Syria
David Rosen
The Great Fear: Miscegenation, Race “Pollution” and the 2016 Election
Ben Debney
Worthy and Unworthy Victims of Child Abuse
David Barouh
Liberal Myths: Would Al Gore Have Invaded Iraq?
Graham Peebles
Democratic Revolution Sweeps Ethiopia
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
How Parasitic Finance Capital Has Turned Iran’s Economy Into a Case of Casino Capitalism
David Swanson
The Unbearable Awesomeness of the U.S. Military
Robert Fantina
The Olympics: Nationalism at its Worst
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail