Free Trade: A New Conquest of Mexico

The quincentenary of Columbus' arrival in the Americas may some day be remembered by Mexican historians as the year in which the second conquest of their country officially began. For on August 12, 1992, the chief executives of the United States, Canada, and Mexico announced the conclusion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Unlike the first conquest by the Spaniards, it appears that this conquest, at least for the short term, will be bloodless. But the fact that no blood was spilled will be of little comfort to the mother who watches her child die of malnutrition as a result of NAFTA-related "reforms" in the Mexican countryside.

The restructuring of Mexican agriculture that will take place under NAFTA--if the agreement is approved by Congress--could result in the removal of up to 95 percent of Mexico's farmers from their land. When family members and villagers are taken into account, up to 15 million rural Mexicans could ultimately be displaced, left with the option of either migrating to the United States in search of work or joining the impoverished millions in the slums of Mexico City.

Of course, NAFTA proponents claim that the displacement of rural families is necessary for "economic growth" in Mexico, since NAFTA will supposedly generate new manufacturing jobs that will need to be filled. The trauma suffered by land-based people forced to leave their homes is not a consideration for the free-trade promoters. Nor can they guarantee that the Mexican economy will ever expand enough to accommodate all of the new employment-seekers.

However, assuming that enough jobs could be created, what kind of jobs would they be? The answer is found in an examination of the already existing free-trade zone along the U.S.-Mexico border, dotted with nearly 2,000 maquiladoras -factories owned by U.S. companies that operate on the Mexican side while enjoying duty-free access to the U.S. market. Companies such as General Electric, Chrysler, AT&T, and a host of smaller firms locate plants over the border to increase their profits by taking advantage of Mexico's lower wages, lax to non-existent safety regulations, and looser, mostly unenforced environmental standards.

The average hourly wage in the maquiladoras is 57 cents, with no pensions, health care benefits, or worker compensation plans. Workers are exposed to toxic chemicals with little or no protective gear, and cancer and birth-defect rates are high. Even people who do not actually work in the maquiladoras are affected by the contamination of their air, water, and soil by the factories.

For instance, in Matamoros, Mexico, and neighboring Brownsville, Texas, health workers have reported an epidemic of anencephaly, a birth defect that causes a baby to be born with no brain. Doctors believe that uncontrolled pollution from the maquiladoras is responsible for the outbreak. Indeed, the National Toxics Campaign calls the U.S.-Mexico border "a 2,000-mile-long Love Canal." One can only imagine the resultant suffering if the free-trade zone is expanded beyond the narrow strip along the border to include all of Mexico.

ALTHOUGH THE U.S. media are finally beginning to cover the loss of U.S. jobs, downward pressure on U.S. wages, and weakening of U.S. environmental standards that are likely to result from NAFTA, they rarely mention the ways in which NAFTA could devastate Mexico. Indeed, under the conditions spelled out by NAFTA, the chief export of the United States will not be jobs, but misery.

It is unlikely that a democratic Mexican government would have agreed to anything resembling the current version of NAFTA. President Carlos Salinas won the presidency in what most outside observers deemed a rigged election, and his party has used every means available, including violence, to maintain the grip it has had on Mexico since coming to power in 1929. According to Amnesty International, state-sponsored torture is common in Mexico. Many journalists and political dissidents have been murdered since Salinas took office.

Since the present Mexican government can hardly be considered legitimate, Salinas' initialing of the NAFTA agreement in August should not be construed as representing the will of the Mexican people. Neither does NAFTA represent the interests of U.S. citizens. The whole negotiation process has been shrouded in secrecy. None of our elected representatives in Congress--let alone churches, labor unions, environmental organizations, or consumer groups--were allowed to see the full text of the August 12 agreement until after it had been reviewed by 40 select trade advisory groups representing U.S. business and agriculture.

Excluded from the NAFTA debate thus far, citizens must now make themselves heard if NAFTA is to be stopped. The "fast track" rules under which Congress currently deals with trade agreements prohibit both houses of Congress from amending President Bush's agreement in any way; they must vote the entire NAFTA up or down. Debate is limited to 20 hours, and they must vote within 60 legislative days after they begin discussion of it, probably in February. However, "fast track" is only a procedural rule, and can be changed at any time by a simple majority vote in either house.

People of faith have a unique role to play in the international trade debate. Several years ago, during negotiations on the still-pending General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)--a NAFTA writ large that involves 108 countries (see "A Means of 'Recolonization,'" June 1991)--the United States proposed that countries experiencing famine be required to honor existing contracts to export grain. Thus, countries would have been forced to ship out food even while their own citizens were starving. The United States was ultimately forced to withdraw the proposal, but only after a loud and sustained outcry from the churches.

Christians thus have not only the moral responsibility to block NAFTA, but also, if we are persistent, a reasonable hope of success.

Kathy Collmer was a free-lance writer in Minneapolis, Kansas, and wrote frequently on agricultural, environmental, and social justice issues when this article appeared.