Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! We only shake you down once a year, but when we do we really mean it. It costs a lot to keep the site afloat, and our growing audience, well over TWO million unique viewers a month, eats up a lot of bandwidth — and bandwidth isn’t free. We aren’t supported by corporate donors, advertisers or big foundations. We survive solely on your support.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Birth of NAFTA

by FRED GARDNER

The best defense, some say, is a good offense. Hilllary’s “Shame on you, Barack Obama” performance deflected attention from the fact that the Clinton Administration did indeed get NAFTA through a resistant Congress. NAFTA was conceived under Reagan and then pushed by Poppy Bush, who got an extension of fast-track negotiating authority from Congress. (Meaning Congress couldn’t revise the text, just vote yes or no.) Agreement with Canada and Mexico was reached in August ’92.

As a candidate for president Bill Clinton supported NAFTA with the proviso that side agreements (that would not involve renegotiating the NAFA text) might be needed to protect the environment and the rights of workers. After taking office, Clinton negotiated the side agreements, ignoring the majority of Democrats in Congress whose preference was to scuttle the pact altogether.

In July ’93, according to a National Association of Manufacturers’ chronology, “Lawmakers returning home to their districts in August were barraged by anti-NAFTA sentiment. Many supporters of NAFTA returned to Washington publicly undecided on the pact. Convinced that NAFTA’s passage was contingent upon a strong push by the White House, dozens of House Republicans–led by Minority Leader Newt Gingrich–said they would withhold their support until the President demonstrated his commitment to the issue.

“That commitment came September 14, 1993, when President Clinton accompanied by former Presidents Ford, Carter and Bush, issued a strong statement of support for NAFTA.” At this point the Archvillain of the American Century, David Rockefeller, weighed in with a Wall St. Journal op-ed explaining why passage was so important to him, personally:

“I can’t help seeing the current debate over NAFTA in the context of my own half century of work with the people of Canada and Latin America, an interest I shared with my late brother, Nelson. It seems ironic that many of the things we had hoped to witness in Latin America–and worked hard to accomplish–are threatened by a rejection of NAFTA by the U.S.”

The Archvillain’s brother Nelson had toured Latin America at Nixon’s behest in the late ’60s and was greeted by riots in every city. At the time the Rockefellers owned a ranch in Venezuela five times the size of New York City and controlled Creole Petroleum.

The entire hemisphere, the Archvillain wrote in the WSJ, now has “a whole new vision of economic organization … This revolutionary process started with the profound economic transformation undertaken by Chile [under Pinochet]. It accelerated rapidly with Mexico’s decision to join the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; to unilaterally reduce tariffs; and finally to work toward a radically new trading system with the signing of NAFTA. This not only brought Mexico into the game … it also held out the promise of extending the new trading system to the entire hemisphere.” [Rockefeller used the word “revolutionary” four times and “radical” twice to describe the move towards One Big Market. No wonder the Birchers mistake him for a Communist!]

The Archvillain singled out some faithful lieutenants for special praise: George Bush, Carlos Salinas de Gortari (“a young, Harvard-educated economist”), the Peronist Menem in Argentina, Perez in Venezuela … Rockefeller must have wanted to credit Pinochet for turning around “the game” in Chile, but he refrained from doing so by name: “Under what were special circumstances, Chile had already moved in the direction of a market economy under the military government that replaced President Allende’s disastrous Marxist experiment in the early 1970s … ” Rockefeller gloated that there was no longer opposition to privatization in Latin America: “Traditional ‘labor’ parties carried out the economic revolution because they felt that the changes being encouraged would result in economic growth and job creation …

“I never expected to see such a transformation in my lifetime. It would be a terrible pity to see such a historic opportunity pass by us now because of a failure on our part to ‘grasp the moment … ‘ I truly don’t think that ‘criminal’ would be too strong a word to describe an action on our part, such as rejecting NAFTA, that would so seriously jeopardize all the good that has been done –and remains to be done– to improve the lives and fortunes of so many people.”

Rockefeller’s lifelong gopher, Henry Kissinger, weighed in at the same time with a piece in the LA Times calling NAFTA “the single most important decision that Congress would make during Mr. Clinton’s first term … . the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War … not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system.”

Meanwhile, on the legal front, Public Citizen, the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth had sued the Bush Administration for not completing an environmental impact statement on NAFTA. On June 30, 1993, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Richey ruled that the White House did indeed have to complete an EIS before sending NAFTA to Congress. The Clinton Administration asked a U.S. appeals court to reverse the decision. Solicitor General Drew S. Days III argued that the Environmental Protection Act applies to federal ITAL agencies, END ITAL not to the president, who would be in charge of implementing NAFTA. (George W. Bush’s advisors didn’t invent the imperial presidency.) A three-judge panel overruled Richey and Clinton sent an implementing bill to Congress in November ’93.

According to the NAM history, “Anti-NAFTA forces claimed they had enough votes to defeat the bill in the House, but as the House vote scheduled for November 17 approached, intense lobbying efforts by the White House and by the NAM and its members proved successful … In the end, the House approved NAFTA by a 234-200 vote.”

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, some say, is that the Democrats do it to us with lubrication. Poppy Bush probably could not have forced NAFTA through Congress. It took the Clinton side agreements to slide it through.

FRED GARDNER edits O’Shaughnessy’s. He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com.

 

 

 

 

Fred Gardner is the managing editor of O’Shaughnessy’s. He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
David Swanson
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
James McEnteer
Eugene, Oregon and the Rising Cost of Cool
Norman Pollack
The Great Debate: Proto-Fascism vs. the Real Thing
Michael Winship
The Tracks of John Boehner’s Tears
John Steppling
Fear Level Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Where Is That Wasteful Government Spending?
James Russell
Beyond Debate: Interview Styles of the Rich and Famous
September 26, 2016
Diana Johnstone
The Hillary Clinton Presidency has Already Begun as Lame Ducks Promote Her War
Gary Leupp
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Against Russia
Dave Lindorff
Parking While Black: When Police Shoot as First Resort
Robert Crawford
The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War
Howard Lisnoff
The Case of One Homeless Person
Michael Howard
The New York Times Endorses Hillary, Scorns the World
Russell Mokhiber
Wells Fargo and the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival
Chad Nelson
The Crime of Going Vegan: the Latest Attack on Angela Davis
Colin Todhunter
A System of Food Production for Human Need, Not Corporate Greed
Brian Cloughley
The United States Wants to Put Russia in a Corner
Guillermo R. Gil
The Clevenger Effect: Exposing Racism in Pro Sports
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]