Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Mexican Campaign Against NAFTA Finds Its Focus

By Katie Kohlstedt, Foreign Policy in Focus. Posted February 15, 2008.


Hundreds of thousands are organizing against NAFTA and its encroaching powers.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Some of the 300,000-plus protesters marched against the increasing price of corn, pesticides, and fertilizer. Some marched against the secretary of agriculture. Some marched to get a free lunch. There were marchers against genetically modified organisms (GMO). But at the other end of the march was a contingent of tractors, which had traversed the country to make a dramatic procession down the Avenida Reforma, that sported pro-GMO stickers sponsored by Monsanto.

Despite these various and sometimes divergent interests, the Mexican campaign against NAFTA is finding a focus. One of the best attended sessions of the recent Mexico Social Forum was on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a so-called "NAFTA-plus" closed-doors agreement stirring concern throughout Canada, the United States, and Mexico that the most undemocratic corporate domination is yet to come. The SPP needs to be on the radar of citizens of all three countries because it ties the issues together into a particularly sinister package. Security, natural resource control, militarization as a response to the drug war, the abandonment of small farmers, and links between NAFTA and immigration are all now brought together within the SPP -- and within the social movements that oppose it.

So Far From God, So Close to the U.S.

On several levels the recent march in Mexico City was a national affair. Familiar concerns, such as the illegitimacy of the government and the lack of attention to the needs of farmers, were expressed in the many placards that demonstrators waved. With such a diversity of concerns, however, it seemed as though everyone was marching for their own reasons.

But certain key issues unify the dissent. For instance, resentment runs high toward the United States and the role it plays in sensitive questions such as the privatization of Mexico's PEMEX (Mexico's National Petroleum Company). Halliburton"s signing of a $683-million dollar contract with PEMEX late in January has led to more speculation about the privatization of one of Mexico's citizens most treasured resources. An unequal playing field on trade among the NAFTA countries and the transnational takeover of additional Mexican industries are not going to go unnoticed.

These inequities are particularly acute in the countryside. A U.S. farmer, for instance, would receive direct or indirect subsidies equivalent to $150 a hectare (2.5 acres). Cross the river to Mexico and the farmer would only get around $45. According to a report by Mexico's Center for Studies on Public Finance, despite the World Trade Organization"s aim to reduce subsidies, the United States gave out more than $611.3 billion in subsidies between 2000 and 2005, while in the same years Mexico gave $46.3 billion and Canada $51.4 billion. Total U.S. subsidies in 2005 were nearly 20 times that of Mexico.

One small corn and beans farmer from the Southern state of Campeche at the march asked, "What is this "free trade?" Supposedly it's for everyone, right? But 'they' control it and use it for whatever they want." A Mexico City native observing the march said, "Free Trade Agreements don't benefit producers, the people that really work. Obviously, the subsidies that the United States has on grains and agriculture can't compare with the state of abandonment of the Mexican countryside. Clearly we are at a disadvantage."

Sectors such as the sweetener industry have become so desperate, says Dennis Olson of the Institute on Agriculture and Trade Policy, that, "The mutual threat of lost markets and livelihoods has compelled Mexican and U.S. sugar farmers to work out an agreement that will give both sides a fighting chance to survive ... it could help us avoid another displacement of Mexican agricultural workers who will be forced to migrate north if we allow NAFTA to be implemented unencumbered." Around three million jobs in Mexico are associated with the sugar industry.

On to New Orleans

According to President Bush in his final State of the Union address, the next SPP summit will take place in New Orleans on April 21 and 22. If we care enough about the decisions being made on our behalf, we need to represent our peoples there -- Canadian, American, Mexican, and all the cross-national variations. Our leaders continue to collude with the leaders of Wal-Mart, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, and Procter & Gamble (to name just a few) to create a smokescreen behind which they make overriding decisions without consulting us.

These hot subjects of immigration, subsidies, and corporate manipulation with disregard for the public are making people angry in all parts of North America. As divergent as the march was, at least Mexicans were motivated to hit the streets. If only the injustices of NAFTA made enough people angry enough to push their governments to do something.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: mexico, nafta, corporate globalization

Katie Kohlstedt is program associate at the Americas Policy Program in Mexico City.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Worker's Rights
Posted by: desidid on Feb 15, 2008 4:36 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Katie wants Americans to take to the streets against NAFTA, but links this story to an article that infers immigration attrition through enforcement is somehow evil.

Far too many of the writers published here seem to feel we should protect the rights of foreign workers throughout the world, but abandon our worker's rights. I don't understand that kind of thinking and I never will. I certainly concur that we should stand up against NAFTA and SPP. Our trade agreements need to be transparent, for the good of the public, and across both the northern and southern borders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's see if I got it right...
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 15, 2008 5:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American farm subsidies mean that farmers south of the border cannot compete, because US produce can be sold cheaper?

And moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico means that American workers lose their jobs because we cannot compete with Mexican wages?

Doesn't that mean that field workers immigrate to the US because our subsidized farmers can employ them? And factory workers stay in Mexico because jobs are available?

So how many American workers want stoop labor in the fields and assembly line work in mills? Maybe we just want to bitch and moan?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You got it half right Posted by: billwald
Don't sell Americans short
Posted by: darkhorse on Feb 15, 2008 11:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So how many American workers want stoop labor in the fields and assembly line work in mills?

I would bet the answer would be each and every American who lost those jobs to cheap illegal alien labor in the first place.

All too often I see comments here that just make me think that there's way too many people who are more than willing to sell the American worker short. It's ignorant, prejudical and just downright meanspirited.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Los Pendejos de EE. UU.
Posted by: jmmartin on Feb 16, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, we've been fucking Mexico in the ass since the mid-19th century; the more things change, the more they remain the same. It should not be forgotten that Bill Clinton was big on free trade, so it is certainly not the exclusive fault of the GOP.

The Economist did a splendid article on the rising cost of food recently, and it pointed out that one of the developing countries' (and especially Mexico's) problems was that corn seems to be the grain of choice for the manufacture of ethanol. NAFTA has practically ended the ejido system south of the border, to the effect that more and more small farmers have been losing their land to agribusiness conglomerates, causing cities like the Federal District, Puebla, Guadalajara, and Monterrey to swell to bursting with displaced agrarian peoples.

We sold NAFTA to Mexico promising to help it, but we're really doing it incredible damage. The only people who have genuinely profited are the ultra rich, whom Arbusto rewards with tax cuts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Los Pendejos de EE. UU. Posted by: desidid
Eurpeans have ruined everything
Posted by: DigitalAztec on Feb 16, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do Europeans call themselves "Americans?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The wealthy are foresight free!
Posted by: antu on Feb 16, 2008 11:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have such a big cushion they will not be effected by following the Chicago School of economics agenda...
Shock capitalism - capitalizing on economic/war/natural disaster.
(they've been practicing for a long long time now.)
They hate the goose (living wage-laborer, clean water drinker, fresh air breathers). The goose is greasy & just doesn't wear the right clothes or eat in the right restaurants.
They have to flatten the economy for the world to be flat.
Kill the goose for the egg.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]