Nafta 18538 Essay Example

Mexico. On August 12, 1992, President Bush announced the successful completion of the treaty and hailed it as a significant triumph for the United States. By November of that same year, the treaty had been officially ratified into law.

Despite the secretive negotiations, a significantly flawed agreement emerged. The main purpose of NAFTA was to generate employment opportunities, and it is only fair to evaluate the actual outcomes in comparison to the ambitious pledges made by its advocates, who promised hundreds of thousands of new, well-paid jobs in the United States. However, even when assessed using a less strict "do no harm" standard, NAFTA can be regarded as ineffective. This conclusion stems from a recent survey conducted among Americans that assesses the performance of NAFTA.

According to a study, a majority of Americans, specifically 66%, have the perception that free trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries result in job losses in the U.S.

According to a survey, a majority of Americans (66%) feel that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been beneficial for big corporations.

According to a survey, the majority of Americans (73%) do not believe that NAFTA has been advantageous for small businesses in the United States.

Based on a recent survey, 58% of Americans believe that foreign trade has negatively affected the U.S. economy. They contend that the rise in inexpensive imports has led to reduced wages and layoffs.

According to a survey, 81% of Americans believe that Congress should reject trade agreements allowing other countries to override U.S. laws regarding consumer safety, labor, or the environment.

The impact of NAFTA on job loss is evident, as over 200,000 U.S. workers have been certified as

casualties under a specific government program. The steady shift of manufacturing jobs to Mexico since the 1970s is due to American companies recognizing the lower production costs associated with relocating their factories there. This decision was facilitated by Mexico's minimum wage of 58? per hour and lenient enforcement of environmental laws. Despite maintaining tariffs on imported goods, American companies found it beneficial to relocate production to Mexico. The passage of the Maquiladoras Act in 1972 further incentivized Mexico to actively attract U.S. manufacturers.

Despite the positive American employment resulting from job growth unrelated to NAFTA, it is undeniable that a significant number of workers have become unemployed due to NAFTA. Presently, many of these individuals are either jobless or have found lower-wage positions compared to their previous jobs.

Economic surveys indicate that a significant number of high-paying manufacturing jobs, which were lost as a result of NAFTA, are being substituted with lower-paid positions.

Take into account these alarming facts:

The trade balance between the U.S. and Mexico underwent a significant transformation due to NAFTA. In 1993, the U.S. enjoyed a trade surplus of $1.7 billion with Mexico; however, by 1998, this had transformed into an estimated deficit of $14.7 billion.

NAFTA has resulted in around 214,902 American workers being certified by the U.S. Department of Labor as laid off.

Counties along the U.S.-Mexico border in the United States have experienced a higher number of job losses compared to other areas as a result of NAFTA. Specifically, El Paso, TX has been significantly affected, with over 10,000 jobs lost due to this trade agreement. It is important to note that Texas counties have the highest poverty rates in the entire country and

also display the highest percentage of adults without a high school diploma. The unemployment rate among all U.S. counties bordering Mexico has risen from 10.4% in 1993 to 13.5%. This increase in unemployment may directly impact the nation's crime rates.

The current agricultural crisis in the United States can be attributed to farm policies that were implemented during the 1990's, with the intention of promoting free market and trade. Consequently, these policies have had adverse consequences for wheat, winter fruit and vegetable, as well as tomato producers within the country. Moreover, they have also hindered policymakers from safeguarding American farmers against dumping practices resulting from recent events like currency depreciation in Canada and reduced global demand for commodities following the Asian financial crisis. Furthermore, due to NAFTA, American producers are now compelled to compete with agricultural products originating from Mexico; it is crucial to acknowledge that agribusiness in Mexico enjoys advantages such as lower wages and less stringent regulations concerning pesticide residues and bacterial contamination - thereby posing potential risks to public health.

Despite theoretical predictions of lower costs for consumers as a result of tariff reductions and increased competition under NAFTA, there have been cases where consumer prices have actually increased.

Despite a 62% reduction in the cost of hot dogs, American consumers still pay a higher price for one pound of pork today compared to five years ago, even after considering inflation.

Since the inception of NAFTA in 1993, there has been a notable increase of 16% in the cost of tomatoes.

Producers in Canada sell a pig for $60, while supermarkets charge $3,200 for the same pig.

Canadian wheat imports to the U.S. were minimal prior to the

1998 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. However, after five years of NAFTA's implementation, the U.S. has emerged as Canada's second-largest market for wheat exports. The quantity of Canadian spring wheat imports to the U.S. experienced an exponential increase of 2,000% from 1990 to 1997, reaching a staggering 1.45 million tons.

This influx of Canadian wheat has had a significant negative impact on American wheat farmers who are unable to enforce new quotas due to NAFTA regulations that previously imposed quotas on Canadian wheat in 1994 but have since been eliminated.

Industrial activity in the U.S.-Mexico border free trade zone, where export manufacturing plants are concentrated, is causing increasing damage to the environment. This concentration of plants has worsened existing environmental and public health problems, with NAFTA contributing to this negative impact. The Clinton Administration recognized this issue and cautioned that without NAFTA, the maquiladora sector's growth would lead to an environmentally harmful cycle of industrial expansion and population increase, resulting in air and water pollution.

Contrary to expectations, the maquiladora zone along the U.S.-Mexico border has seen an unexpected surge in growth. Unfortunately, this increase has had adverse effects on the environment and public health, despite assurances of cleanup efforts and new infrastructure. Furthermore, there are currently three ongoing lawsuits where U.S. companies are suing Mexico for permission to establish facilities for disposing hazardous waste. In 1997, the importation of hazardous waste into the United States surpassed levels from both 1993 and any other period in the 1990s. This rise in imports heightens the risk of contamination due to potential spills during transportation. Notably, Mexican trucks are nearly twice as likely as U.S. trucks to be taken

out of service for failing inspections.

In early 1999, the decision was made to release twenty-five million gallons of Mexican sewage per day off the coast of Imperial Beach, California. Despite being treated, the sewage still contained harmful substances and did not meet the acute toxicity limits outlined in the U.S. Clean Water Act. The U.S. EPA conducted tests to confirm this information. The discharge location would be in water that is 100' deep and just a few miles from shore.

The issue of clean air and clean water remains a significant concern, especially along the U.S.-Mexico border. The increase in truck traffic due to imports from Mexico has led to notable effects. In Texas, there has been a 19% rise in truck traffic since 1994, averaging at 17,582 trucks per day. Along California's San Diego Otay Mesa border area, the number of trucks crossing has more than doubled during the NAFTA period, increasing from 450,000 to 1,000,000. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cautioned about hazardous levels of air pollutants in border areas and the exposure of residents to carbon monoxide. Consequently, multiple regions along the border now exceed established air quality standards. These regions include El Paso and Dona Ana County in Texas; Imperial County and San Diego in California; as well as Douglas and Yuma in Arizona.

Despite promises of improved practices and border inspection in Mexico, the 1993 NAFTA debate ignored concerns about health and food safety. Contrary to expectations, NAFTA actually weakened existing food safety standards by allowing the importation of meat and poultry that did not meet U.S. safety standards and reducing border inspections. Consequently, there has been an increase in imports

of produce from Mexico into the United States; however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) now conducts fewer inspections on imported foods than prior to NAFTA. This combination of increased volume but decreased scrutiny significantly raises the risk of Americans being exposed to unsafe food due to NAFTA. Furthermore, pollution from maquiladora production under NAFTA has exacerbated serious public health issues in border communities. These problems encompass a rise in certain fatal birth defects as well as diseases related to sanitation. It is crucial to consider these matters concerning food safety and health risks associated with the environment.

It is vital to ensure the safety of food.

From 1993 to the present, the FDA has seen a decrease in the percentage of imported food it inspects. This proportion has gone down from 8% to below 2%.

Despite not requiring member countries to maintain specific food safety regulations, NAFTA has resulted in Mexico experiencing a notable surge in imports of fruits and vegetables. Unfortunately, this influx coincided with substantial cuts to the country's funding for domestic food inspection. In 1992, Mexico dedicated $25 million (U.S.) towards implementing measures to ensure food safety; however, this allocation was dramatically reduced to $5 million (U.S.) by 1995.

A report in 1993 revealed that strawberries imported from Mexico exceeded acceptable pesticide levels in 18.4% of cases. However, after NAFTA was implemented, Mexican strawberry imports to the U.S. rose by 31%, now accounting for 96% of all U.S. strawberry imports.

Environmentally related health hazards

Extensive documentation reveals that the contamination of the Rio Grande River during NAFTA has led to severe fecal contamination, putting border residents at risk for Hepatitis A. The Texas Department of Health

has reported significant increases in Hepatitis A rates since NAFTA's implementation. In Cameron County, the rate increased from 17.8/100,000 residents to 87.4/100,000 residents, a nearly 400% rise. Similarly, Maverick County experienced a 122% increase in Hepatitis A rate, going from 82.5/100,000 to 183/100,000 since 1993. Webb County also saw a rise of 78%, with an increase from 59.6/100,000 in 1993 to 105.9/1000,000 in 1997.

The rate of neural tube defects in babies born by 1998 in Cameron County, TX was 19/10,000 babies, which is almost twice the national average. In 1991, a public health crisis occurred on the U.S.-Mexico border when three babies were born without a brain (anencephaly) within 36 hours at the same Cameron County Hospital. A new group of defects was identified by the Texas Department of Health Neural Tube Defect Surveillance Project in 1995. According to the Department, "The entire border area continues to be a high-risk zone [for neural tube defects] when compared to the rest of the United States."

Despite the ongoing health crisis, there is an increasing wage disparity between workers in the United States and Mexico. In the U.S., manufacturing workers receive an average hourly compensation of approximately $18.74/hr. However, maquila workers in recently established foreign-owned high-tech plants, as a result of NAFTA regulations, are earning only $1.51/hr.

During the 1990s, workers in the United States faced stagnant wages and weak wage growth. Despite an economic expansion that was highly regarded during this period, many economists believe that trade is to blame for this lack of progress. Trade policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) made it easier for wages to be suppressed and discouraged unionization

by creating a threat of job relocation. A study conducted as part of NAFTA's labor side agreement discovered that employers frequently used relocation as a way to undermine worker organizing efforts and salary demands. Kate Brofrenbrenner, an expert from Cornell University School of Industrial Relations, found that the number of US companies shutting down in response to union activities tripled under NAFTA.

NAFTA was designed to boost the standard of living in Mexico, enabling its citizens to become consumers and establish a partnership between two established trading entities. However, the income of Mexicans has significantly dropped since the implementation of NAFTA: In 1997, the number of Mexicans earning less than Mexico's legal minimum wage of $3.40/day increased by 20% compared to 1993, reaching 7,771,607 individuals. Furthermore, salaries for Mexico's working class had declined to 60% of their 1994 value by the end of 1997.

The vanishing of American Icons has initiated. The ensuing casualties have indicated this:

Huffy Bicycles shut down its bicycle plant in Celina, OH, which was the largest in the world. The closure resulted in the layoff of 650 workers and the relocation of production to Mexico.

Bass Shoes, which had been based in Maine for 122 years, made the decision to move production to Mexico, resulting in the layoff of 350 employees.

Thompson Consumer Electronics, formerly RCS-Victor, relocated the world's largest TV factory in Bloomington, IN to Mexico, resulting in the layoff of 1,200 workers. Unfortunately, only 8% of these individuals secured employment with comparable or higher wages.

The original intention of NAFTA was to bring about economic development and improve the lives of Mexicans and Americans. The goal was for Mexico to become more similar to

the United States in terms of prosperity and the presence of a middle class. However, the reality is that Mexico's development has actually declined since NAFTA was implemented. Poverty has increased, the middle class has shrunk, wages are lower, and there has been a significant rise in maquiladora employment, which provides low-paying jobs and a reduced quality of life along the border. In fact, when surveyed, 67% of Mexicans state that NAFTA has resulted in very little success for Mexico.

Supporters of NAFTA believed that the agreement would lead Mexico towards a different path of development, moving away from low-wage, oppressive, and heavily polluted maquiladora zones near the border, and instead promoting the kind of growth that is necessary for genuine and significant progress. On the day NAFTA was implemented, there were 546,433 people employed in maquiladoras along the U.S.-Mexico border. By April 1998, this number had increased to 983,272 Mexicans working in maquiladoras, making the maquila sector the biggest source of employment in Mexico.

Despite the presence of , it is evident that both Mexican economic development and the standard of living for many Mexicans have drastically declined. From 1984 to 1994, despite multiple currency devaluations, the poverty rate in Mexico remained constant at 34% of the population. However, by 1997, a staggering 60% of the Mexican labor force found themselves living below the poverty line. These facts highlight the concerning state of Mexico's economy and its impact on its citizens.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a staggering eight million Mexicans have been driven into poverty and forcibly removed from the middle class.

Since 1994, the year NAFTA became effective, salaried workers in Mexico have

experienced a decrease of 34% in their purchasing power.

One significant and relatively unknown aspect of NAFTA is its provision that empowers private corporations to directly challenge laws and policies they believe are detrimental to their profitability. This new investment protection, known as Chapter 11, allows corporate plaintiffs to bring legal challenges before NAFTA tribunals against decisions made by local and national governments in all three NAFTA countries. Since its implementation in 1996, this provision has already resulted in seven challenges, with total damage claims surpassing one billion dollars. Interestingly, these challenges have overwhelmingly focused on issues unrelated to international trade, such as public health, environmental zoning, and civil procedures in state courts. A notable example was the repeal of a major public health law in Canada due to a challenge under NAFTA. Experts predict that this initial wave of lawsuits may signify a much larger wave of legal actions in the future, as more corporations recognize the potential benefits of utilizing this new NAFTA provision. Importantly, laws and policies can be challenged regardless of their connection to international trade, as long as an investor or corporation from one country has genuine or potential business interests in the country it wishes to sue.

On September 22, 1998, Mexico submitted a formal request for dispute resolution under NAFTA to make the U.S. open its border to Mexican trucks, allowing them to reach any destination within the country. Currently, Mexican trucks are only permitted to travel to destinations within a specific distance from the U.S.-Mexico border. The original plan was to open the border on December 17, 1995. However, the U.S. Department of Transportation denied Mexican truckers full access

to the U.S. market due to safety concerns. If the arbitration panel rules in favor of Mexico, the U.S. will either have to unlock its border for Mexican truckers or compensate Mexico financially. In a 1997 U.S. government report, various environmental reasons were presented as arguments against opening the U.S. border to Mexican trucks. None of the concerns raised by the U.S. government and public safety advocates, such as issues related to gun and drug smuggling across the border, have been addressed since NAFTA was implemented.

The fears of complete open borders being fed by Mexican truckers are confirmed by numerous alarming facts. One such issue is truck safety.

According to the Government Accounting Office, less than 1% of the 3.3 million trucks crossing the U.S. border each year receive inspections. Of the trucks that are checked, nearly half are deemed unsafe and taken out of service. In 1998, approximately 5,000 trucks per day were entering the U.S. via Texas, but there were only five (5) inspectors available on weekdays. In El Paso, only one (1) inspector is responsible for inspecting 1,300 trucks that pass through daily. As a result, only 10-14 trucks are actually inspected each day!

According to the U.S. DEA, approximately 70% of the cocaine smuggled into the United States enters through the U.S.-Mexico border, with an estimated annual amount of 300 tons as stated by the U.S. Customs Service.

According to U.S. Customs, stolen cars are a major export from the United States and are commonly transported through Mexico. Every year, around 200,000 stolen vehicles are shipped from U.S. ports. Approximately 10% of these vehicles are driven across the California border, not accounting for those

smuggled through rail, truck, or other border states in Mexico.

The problem of gun smuggling between the U.S. and Mexico has been worsened by the more permeable border between the two countries, with 90% of illegally owned guns being brought across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Overall, NAFTA's Trade Adjustment Assistance Program was meant to help workers who lost jobs due to the agreement. However, the majority of affected workers did not receive any benefits because of the program's strict eligibility criteria. Specifically, workers were only eligible if their products were directly affected by NAFTA. As a result, service workers, retail and agricultural workers, as well as small manufacturing workers indirectly impacted by the agreement were automatically excluded from assistance. This means that even those who lost their jobs due to manufacturing inputs being moved to Mexico did not qualify for support.

The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), also known as NAFTA's labor side agreement, was included in NAFTA by the Clinton Administration to appease Congress and address concerns about environmental damage and workers' rights. However, it has been ineffective in achieving its intended purpose. Despite efforts by labor unions and others to utilize the labor side agreement to combat worker abuse, it has proven to be lacking in enforcement measures. The recent NAFTA labor commission has identified several cases of abusive practices, but no actions have been taken against offending countries or to eliminate these unfair practices.

A total of nineteen (19) submissions have been made under the NAALC: twelve against Mexico, six against the United States, and one against Canada. However, none of these submissions have led to fines being imposed on the respective

countries.

Despite the fact that the right to organize is considered an essential human right worldwide, the NAALC does not penalize Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. for their failure to uphold the right to unionize.

It is widely acknowledged that the institutions formed under NAFTA's environmental side agreement have not succeeded in improving the well-known environmental degradation along the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite the enactment of NAFTA, Mexico has still not started gathering information on environmental contamination, which goes against the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, the environmental side deal. The issues related to pollution, hazardous waste, and other risks to public health cannot be recognized and resolved until data is collected and evaluated.

Moreover, the growth of maquiladora employment has worsened public health problems along the border. On the U.S. side, 500,000 individuals reside in colonias, which are unincorporated settlements where access to running water and sewage systems is often lacking.

There is strong evidence that NAFTA is not in the best interest of the United States. Whether it is the economy, public health and safety, or the environment, I believe that this laissez-faire trade agreement was poorly designed and executed. Capital investment is leaving the country, leading to an overall decline in our standard of living. Immediate action is needed to prevent this situation from becoming a disaster for all parties involved. I firmly believe that NAFTA has the potential to harm our economy, significantly increase unemployment, and undermine our national pride and identity. This is, of course, assuming it hasn't already done so.

Endnotes

Bibliography

The AFL-CIO commissioned Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. to conduct a poll from July 18-22, 1997.

Ibid

Word Count: 3726