NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/5452

Text File | 1992-07-29 | 40.0 KB | 822 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!ukma!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
From: [e-mail] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: NAFTA-THOUGHTS vol. 2 no. 3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:55:19 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 806

/** carnet.mexnews: 125.0 **/
** Topic: NAFTATHOUGHTS vol. 2 no. 3 **
** Written  2:01 pm  Jul 29, 1992 by dgap in cdp:carnet.mexnews **
                     NAFTATHOUGHTS

A Newsletter on the North American Free Trade Agreement
Vol. 2, No.3                                 July 1992

.1  Majority of Congress Sponsors Waxman-Gephart Resolution;
    What's On Deck for NAFTA: Trade Talks in Extra Innings;
    Congressman Chides NAFTA with New Trade Proposal

.2  PRI Claims Win in Michoacan, Concedes in Chihuahua;
    New Book on Labor Suppression in Mexico

.3  MODTLE Forum: "Is Socially Responsible Trade Possible?"

.4  Canadians Stress Rights-NAFTA Link;
    Governors' Report on Trade;
    NAFTA Analysis and Alternatives Paper

.5  Forthcoming Article on NAFTA and the Environment;
    Environmental Groups Counter "Greenwash"

.6  The Negotiation of the Free Trade Agreement: An Unfavorable
    Path for Mexico--A summary of a preliminary analysis from
    Mexico of the "Dallas Draft"


The groups of articles listed above can be accessed as 'replies' to
this topic.  To download the entire newsletter, set your computer
to capture and type cdt.

------------------------------------------------------------
  Editor..................... Karen Hansen-Kuhn
  Executive Editor........... Steve Hellinger
  Design & Production........ Cynthia Power

Published by The Development GAP in cooperation with Mobilization
on Development, Labor, Trade & Environment.

NAFTATHOUGHTS provides information and perspectives on developments
in Canada, the United States and Mexico related to the proposed
North American Free Trade Agreement.  Views expressed in
NAFTATHOUGHTS are those of the writers and do not necessarily
represent those of the affiliated organizations.  Contributions are
welcomed.

Editorial Offices:
The Development GAP, 1400 I Street, NW - Suite 520
Washington, DC 20005 USA
Phone: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  Peacenet: dgap

If you would like to receive information packets that include the
articles and papers listed in NAFTATHOUGHTS, please contact The
Development GAP.  There is a fee of $15.00/year to cover copying
and mailing costs.

** End of text from cdp:carnet.mexnews **

/** carnet.mexnews: 125.1 **/
** Written  2:04 pm  Jul 29, 1992 by dgap in cdp:carnet.mexnews **
MAJORITY OF CONGRESS SPONSORS WAXMAN-GEPHARDT RESOLUTION

     The number of Members of Congress co-sponsoring a resolution
calling for the safeguarding of environmental, labor, public-health
and consumer-safety standards in trade agreements has continued to
mount.

    Currently, 218 Members, a majority of the House of
Representatives, are co-sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution
246, introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and House Majority
Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO).  The resolution is intended to make
clear to the Bush Administration and U.S. trading partners that
Congress will not approve any trade agreement, including the GATT
and the NAFTA, that jeopardizes U.S. standards.  The House is
slated to vote on the resolution by August.

    "Trade agreements such as GATT and NAFTA must not degrade or
deter our environmental, worker and consumer laws," said consumer
advocate Ralph Nader.  "It should be the role of the world's
largest economy to lift the standards of other nations around the
world instead of having our standards pulled down to lower common
denominators of other countries.  The fact that a majority of the
House has co-sponsored the Waxman-Gephardt resolution sends a clear
signal to President Bush that Americans won't fall for back-door
treaty preemption of our domestic health, safety and economic
rights through a beguiling disguise called `free trade'."

     Meanwhile, 24 House Members led by Rep. Jim Jontz (D-IN) wrote
Rep. Gephardt, citing major commitments to the Congress on which
the President has failed to make good since winning fast-track
authority.  They have asked the Majority Leader "...to challenge
the Administration to live up to its commitments or help us take
NAFTA off of the fast track."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT'S ON DECK FOR NAFTA: Trade Talks in Extra Innings

     There are conflicting rumors about exactly when we should
expect the completion of the NAFTA negotiations and when
congressional deliberations on the issue would begin.  Many
observers had expected the agreement to be completed by 15 July,
but that date has come and gone and the negotiations continue.

     According to a 14 July article in the New York Times, 12 of 22
negotiating groups have still not produced final legal texts on
their respective issues.  At a meeting before the All Star baseball
game in San Diego later that day, Presidents Bush and Salinas
announced that the trade ministers from the three countries would
meet again on 25 July.  Some Bush  Administration officials
reportedly want to see an agreement before the Republican National
Convention in mid-August; others hope to have it finished by the
end of August.

     In the meantime, many questions have arisen about exactly how
"fast track" works and what the likely timing of a congressional
vote on a NAFTA would be.  Fast-track legislation is somewhat
ambiguous, which has caused some confusion regarding the timing of
steps in the congressional review process.

     Fast-track authority requires that the President, after the
U.S. Trade Representative has initialed a substantially completed
trade agreement, notify Congress of his intention to enter into an
agreement 90 days before signing it.  Within two weeks of the
initialing, the seven private-sector advisory committees (the
Services, Investment, Intergovernmental, Industrial, Agricultural
and Defense Policy Advisory Committees and the Labor Advisory
Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy) established to
review the impact of a NAFTA on various sectors must complete their
critiques of the agreement.  USTR has asked these groups to begin
their reviews before the negotiations are actually completed.
According to several reports, however, many of the advisors are
unwilling to begin their analyses based on verbal reports on the
agreement; they are insisting on seeing a completed text.

     The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance
Committee can hold hearings during the 90-day period, and Congress
can comment on and vote to recommend changes in the agreement
during this time, essentially informing Bush that it will not sign
it as is.  Like a vote withdrawing fast-track authority, this would
require a majority vote from either house.

     If, after 90 days, the President were to join the leaders of
the other two countries in signing the agreement, the
Administration could submit the implementing legislation to
Congress.  Congress would then have a maximum of 90 legislative
days to debate and vote on the agreement and the legislation or 60
legislative days if the agreement does not contain any revenue
provisions.  Congress can choose to vote more quickly than that, as
it did in the case of the U.S.-Canada FTA, when the Senate approved
the measure within a calendar month and the House followed suit
soon afterwards.

     When President Bush says he wants to have an agreement wrapped
up by November, he is referring to its trinational signing, not
congressional approval.  At this point, it seems impossible that an
agreement could be passed by Congress before the November election:
Congress is supposed to adjourn in early October, which means that,
even if Bush were to initial the agreement now, Congress would not
be in session when the 90-day notification period ends.  There is
a slim possibility that the lame-duck Congress would choose to vote
on NAFTA, but it seems much more likely that a debate and vote
would take place in early 1993.

     What is the latest date that a NAFTA could be completed and
signed without Congress having to vote again to extend fast-track
authority?  There is some disagreement on this issue, but the
consensus seems to be that the 90-calendar-day notification period
would have to terminate before 1 June 1993; i.e., the President
would need to notify Congress by 1 March 1993 that an agreement is
ready.  But the congressional vote could take place, according to
the consensus, after the 31 May expiration date for the current
fast-track authority.  Most observers believe, however, that
notification will occur not much later than this summer.

Sources: Information compiled by Thea Lee, Economic Policy
Institute; "In Trade Plan, Mexico Agrees To Open Up Financial
Services," by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 14 July 1992, p. A1;
Public Law 100-418, Sec. 1103, Implementation of Trade Agreements.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSMAN CHIDES NAFTA WITH NEW TRADE PROPOSAL
by Lynden Peter, U.S./Mexico Trade Project

     Rep. James A. Traficant (D-OH) recently introduced a new trade
bill, H.R. 5005, to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the
NAFTA.  The "Ohio Free Trade Agreement" would exempt any person
operating a trade or business in the State of Ohio from all Federal
laws and regulations on trade and business.

     In a letter to colleagues, Rep. Traficant warned of problems
with free trade.  He wrote, "If Ohio were exempt from OSHA, EPA,
IRS, Department of Labor, or Social Security laws and regulations,
then Ohio could be competitive with countries like Mexico, China,
the Philippines and other countries that have little if any
regulations to which the industrial sector must
comply...Environmental regulations are virtually nonexistent in
these countries.  Workers earn barely enough to survive and, more
often than not, work under occupationally hazardous conditions.
Moreover, how can we expect American companies to stay in the U.S.
or to open new plants in this country when we make it so easy for
them to leave the U.S. to set up shop in countries with fewer, if
any, regulations?"

     Like other business people, American farmers must comply with
stringent U.S. environmental regulations in order to participate in
government programs.  Many are worried that free-trade agreements
will increase food imports from countries with virtually no farm
regulations or regulations that are not enforced.  Those American
farm operators who practice environmentally sound farming
techniques stand to be the big losers from free-trade agreements
that promote the lowest common regulatory denominator.
Source:  Rep. James Traficant's "Dear Colleague" letter, 1 May
1992.


** End of text from cdp:carnet.mexnews **

/** carnet.mexnews: 125.2 **/
** Written  2:05 pm  Jul 29, 1992 by dgap in cdp:carnet.mexnews **
PRI CLAIMS WIN IN MICHOACAN, CONCEDES IN CHIHUAHUA

     In gubernatorial elections held 12 July, Mexico's ruling
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) declared itself victorious
in Michoacan, while conceding that the opposition National Action
Party (PAN) had won in the northern state of Chihuahua.  The fact
that President Salinas called Eduardo Villasenor, the PRI candidate
in Michoacan, to congratulate him on his victory when just 20
percent of the vote had been counted has been cited by observers as
additional evidence that, despite the government's claims of
reform, Mexican elections remain tightly controlled by the
government and the PRI.

     According to Mexican political analysts such as Jose Agustin
Ortiz Pinchetti and Miguel Angel Granados Chapas, these results
followed from a plan by Salinas and his advisors to split the
conservative PAN from the progressive Party of Democratic
Revolution (PRD).  The PRI also hoped to weaken the PRD by
engineering a decisive defeat for PRD leader Cuauhtemoc Cardenas in
his home state of Michoacan.  Many observers believe that Cardenas
actually won the highly contested 1988 presidential elections.  He
is expected to be a candidate in the 1994 race, as well.

     In contrast to the 1988 elections, however, these races were
monitored by a coalition of seven independent Mexican electoral
observation organizations coordinated by the Citizens Movement for
Democracy (MCD).  The coalitions deployed 450 poll-watchers around
Michoacan and an equal number in Chihuahua.  The groups presented
preliminary conclusions at a press conference following the
elections at which they listed nearly 50 kinds of irregularities
ranging from improper installation and opening (and abrupt closing)
of voting booths to the lack of secrecy in voting and improper
inspection of voter identification.  According to an article in the
14 July New York Times, observers reported that, in at least three
cases, voters were moved from one polling station to another,
presumably to vote twice.

     As Mexican political observers have often pointed out, the
lack of democracy is manifest in Mexico well before voting day.  In
an article in the 15 July Financial Times, the PRD claims that the
PRI outspent opponents by a ratio of 50 to 1 in Michoacan, in part
by sharply increasing spending by Solidarity, the government's
anti-poverty program.  The government also uses its power to
monopolize television and other media coverage of the elections.

     The citizens' coalitions expect to complete their final
reports on the 12 July elections by 22 July.  Copies of the final
report will be available from Cynthia Power at The Development GAP.

Sources: "No hay condiciones que garanticen el libre ejercicio
democratico," by Tereza Gurza, La Jornada, 14 July 1992;
"Elecciones en el pais de nunca jamas," by Jose Ortiz Pinchetti, La
Jornada, 15 July 1992;  "Mexican Party Loses One Vote, Faces Fight
in Second," by Tim Golden, The New York Times, 15 July 1992.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

NEW BOOK ON LABOR SUPPRESSION IN MEXICO
by Rebekah Greenwald, ILRERF

     Exploring the unique history of the Mexican labor movement and
the legal system that liberates it with one hand and squelches it
with the other, Dan La Botz's Mask of Democracy: Labor Suppression
in Mexico Today focuses on the tragedy behind Mexico's pro-worker
facade.  This recently released book looks at every aspect of
workers' lives, from the commun-ities they live in to the air that
they breathe, and answers the question that banks and corporations
dare not ask: what is the cost in human terms of export-led
development and unregulated free trade?

     Beginning with the revolution of 1910, workers have played an
integral role in legitimizing the one-party-dominated Mexican
state.  In the name of the workers, battles have been waged and
power wars have been lost and won.  But Mexican workers have never
received their due.  Barred from joining unions independent from
the state, workers have consistently struggled to achieve even
minimal recognition of their constitutionally mandated rights.
State suppression has cost the workers their freedom and much more.

     Even as the terms of North American free trade are being
negotiated and locked into place, the assault on Mexican labor
continues.  Findings from Mask of Democracy show that Mexican
workers -- men, women and approximately 10,000,000 children -- are
subject to long hours in hazardous, unhealthy workplaces for
miserably meager wages.  Unemploy-ment is estimated at 30 percent
of the economically active population and consideration of
underemploy-ment drives this figure even higher.  As La Botz points
out, to prepare for free trade the Mexican government has
transformed development policies based on high-wage industrial jobs
into export-led policies relying on maquiladoras and low-wage
assembly-line labor that has helped induce a ten-year decline in
wages.

Mask of Democracy (227 pages, with an introduction on trade-linked
labor standards by former U.S. Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall) is
available for $14.00 plus $2.00 shipping from South End Press
(ILBN-O-89608-437-x) or from the International Labor Rights
Research and Education Fund, Box 74, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE,
Washington, DC 20002, [phone].

** End of text from cdp:carnet.mexnews **

/** carnet.mexnews: 125.3 **/
** Written  2:07 pm  Jul 29, 1992 by dgap in cdp:carnet.mexnews **
MODTLE FORUM: "IS SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE TRADE POSSIBLE?"

     On 16 June MODTLE held a forum entitled "Is Socially
Responsible Trade Possible?: EC Experiences and Prospects for NAFTA
and GATT".  About 70 people attended the forum, which was divided
into two panels.

     Ray Marshall, U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Carter,
began the discussion by relating "socially responsible trade" to
the concept and practice of "sustainability", i.e., the covering by
companies of all the costs of their production including those
related to labor and the environment, as well as social costs.  In
this context, he critiqued the competitive strategy of wage-cutting
and promoted that of improving productivity through the upgrading
of people's educational and skills levels.

     Arturo Alcalde, a prominent Mexican labor and human-rights
lawyer, presented the concerns expressed by Mexican citizens'
organizations.  They worry that a free-trade agreement would
further institutionalize Mexico's subordination to its neighbors to
the North, as well as the subordination of unions, environmental
groups and other social organizations to the Mexican government.
He stressed the importance of recognizing that, despite many good
laws in Mexico in the areas of labor, human rights and the
environment, these laws are often not enforced.  Globalization of
economies, he concluded, has upset traditional concepts of
sovereignty.  Now, more than ever, he said, it is crucial to
establish international mechanisms to ensure the application of
legal standards.

     Dave Barrett, a Member of the Canadian Parliament representing
the New Democratic Party, reflected on the Canadian experience with
its free-trade agreement with the United States.  He contended that
freer trade and competition are not the true objectives of the
NAFTA, but rather that this agreement is driven by a corporate
agenda geared to maximizing returns to the investments of
corporations without their assuming any social or environmental
responsibility.  He pointed out that, since the signing of the
agreement in 1988, Canada has experienced its greatest economic
crisis since the Great Depression, with chronic unemployment of
over 12 percent and the loss of over 500,000 jobs.  Similar
processes are occurring in the United States and Mexico, he added,
citing the transfer of General Motors Company jobs to Mexico and
the northward migration in Mexico of a half million people to the
maquiladoras, where wages are low, health standards obsolete and
working conditions intolerable.

     U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur began the second panel presentations by
noting the contradictions in the free-trade approach.  Many U.S.
workers who have lost their jobs as factories relocate to Mexico
are using their unemployment checks to buy goods produced by
Mexican workers who receive wages too low for them to buy the
products themselves.  Alison Pascale, of Rep. Kaptur's staff,
reported on briefings held by USTR for congressional staff.  She
related that the Bush Administration appears to have taken
virtually no action to incorporate labor concerns, or to make a
direct link between trade and the environment, in the NAFTA.

     Rep. George Brown spoke next on the importance of a free-trade
agreement that will benefit all three countries.  The central
challenge, he stated, is to set a process in motion that ensures
the upward harmonization of standards.  A social charter that would
ensure that the benefits of trade are widely shared and lead to a
high-productivity model of development should be an integral part
of the negotiation process.  Such a charter, he contended, should
include minimum continental labor and environmental standards, as
well as mechanisms to enforce those standards, as delineated in the
North American Environmental, Labor, and Agricultural Standards Act
of 1992, introduced by Rep. Brown in April.

     Jerome Levinson of Arnold and Porter, a Washington-based
consulting firm, commented that, while the European Community model
is based on the repudiation of social dumping (i.e., holding wages
down in order to attract investments), the Mexican development
model and the NAFTA are premised on such dumping and on sacrificing
worker rights.  He agreed with Arturo Alcalde that the Mexican
constitution is very progressive on labor issues.  He predicted
that Mexican authorities would have no problem with Rep. Brown's
proposal.  The real issue, he stated, is enforcement of those
standards.

     Stephen Silva of the American Institute for Contemporary
German Studies closed the panel presentations with an explication
of the European Community's experience with social charters.  As
the trade among the members expanded and the social and economic
problems that it created became increasingly apparent, social
sectors gained sufficient leverage to initiate a discussion of
social policy and trade.  The social charter that emerged from that
process consists of 47 social instruments, but just 21 are binding,
and most of those reflect the priorities of corporations.

     The EC went beyond the NAFTA, however, in establishing an
intergovernmental structure that has the power to develop and
implement social policy.  According to Silva, we should avoid the
approach taken under the U.S.-Canada FTA, in which a dispute-
resolution panel made up of a panel of experts hand-picked by the
government has been established.  Such a panel, he emphasized,
should be open to representation from different social groups,
particularly those in contact with and representing the grassroots,
rather than consist solely of free-trade economists.

** End of text from cdp:carnet.mexnews **

/** carnet.mexnews: 125.4 **/
** Written  2:11 pm  Jul 29, 1992 by dgap in cdp:carnet.mexnews **
CANADIANS STRESS RIGHTS-NAFTA LINK
by Hugo Llamas, The Development GAP

     In a brief submitted to Canadian Trade Minister Michael
Wilson, former Member of Parliament Edward Broadbent explores the
linkage between human rights and trade.  "The Proposed NAFTA and
Human Rights" calls on trading countries to recognize the
connection between economic and political change and to adhere to
a common framework of ideals that gives priority to the human
rights of its citizenry.

     Broadbent cites the European Community (EC) as a leader in
recognizing the linkage between trade and human rights.  Eleven of
the 12 EC member countries adopted a Community Charter of the
Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, and Spain's and Portugal's
entry into the EC was delayed until they met the member-states'
human-rights standards.  Likewise, the Charter of the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development links its lending policies to
human rights, pluralism and democracy.

     Broadbent, president of the International Centre for Human
Rights and Democratic Development, asserts that long-term political
stability, which is jeopardized by political repression, is
imperative for sustained economic growth.  Addressing human rights
within a NAFTA, he maintains, would represent an important
opportunity to promote those rights in a positive way, rather than
in a negative manner such as through the application of economic
sanctions.  Canada, he argues, should support groups and people in
Mexico who advocate the integration of human rights into a NAFTA.
"Canada claims to support human rights groups internationally," he
writes.  "Now is the time to show we mean business."

     He concludes with three policy options.  The first is to
include specific humans rights in the main body of a NAFTA or in a
companion document linked to a NAFTA; this could be accomplished
through a Social Charter.  The second option would be the formation
of an independent agency that would monitor the effects of free
trade on human rights in the three countries.  Including human
rights in a preamble to an agreement would be a third option.
Broadbent and the Centre urge the Canadian negotiators to push for
the integration of a Charter into a NAFTA, but recommend the second
option should such a charter be unenforceable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

GOVERNORS' REPORT ON TRADE

     A new report by the Western Governors' Association entitled
"U.S. Multilateral Trade Agreements and the States:  An Analysis of
Potential GATT Uruguay Round Agreements" highlights the ways in
which state governments would be affected directly by a new GATT.
States would be similarly affected by a NAFTA, as reflected in the
Dallas Draft, in such areas as product standards, technical
regulations, subsidies, services and dispute resolution.  According
to the report, "while state measures are subject to trade
agreements...and the federal government is obligated to...use its
constitutional powers to secure compliance...states have no
constitutional right to be included in their dispute settlement
process."

For a copy of the report, contact the Western Governors'
Association at phone [phone], fax [phone].

-----------------------------------------------------------------

NAFTA ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES PAPER

     Informed people across the country have been contributing to
an in-depth critique of the 21 February draft (Dallas Draft) of the
NAFTA, as well as to the development of just and ecologically
sustainable alternative trade policies.  The product of this effort
will be a "living document" that will serve as a basis for an
analysis of the final NAFTA once it is released.

     The paper will be divided into 14 sections: agri-culture;
environment; intellectual property; services; dispute settlement;
role of the state/ preemption; energy and resources; corporate
rights and privileges (investment); labor mobil-ity; financial and
telecommunications services; rules of origin and market access;
textiles; Enterprise for the Americas Initiatives; and an overview
of alternative development strategies.

     If you have expertise in any of these areas and would like to
contribute to the analyses or alternatives, please contact Karen
Lehman at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policies in
Minneapolis:  phone [phone], fax [phone] or on Econet
at iatp.  A preliminary version of the paper will be available from
IATP by late August.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy prepares daily news
summaries on events and articles related to GATT and NAFTA, as well
as a weekly news service on the Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative.  They are available on Econet and Peacenet on the
TRADE.NEWS and EAI.NEWS conferences, respectively.  Contact Kai
Mander at IATP for details.


** End of text from cdp:carnet.mexnews **

/** carnet.mexnews: 125.5 **/
** Written  2:12 pm  Jul 29, 1992 by dgap in cdp:carnet.mexnews **
FORTHCOMING ARTICLE ON NAFTA AND THE ENVIRONMENT

     Michael Gregory of Arizona Toxics Information has written a
thorough paper entitled "Environment, Sustainable Development,
Public Participation and the NAFTA: A Retrospective," scheduled for
publication late this summer in the Journal of Environmental Law
and Litigation.  Gregory analyzes the Bush Administration's
treatment of these issues in its Integrated Border Environmental
Plan and its Environmental Review, as well as many other
environmental issues associated with increased trade.  The analysis
is divided into four sets of "policy polarities": integration vs.
parallel tracks; sustainable development vs. economic growth;
technical criteria vs. trade barriers; and local implementation vs.
federal directive.

    Gregory's article will be available upon publication from the
Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, Univ. of Oregon Law
Center, Eugene, OR 97403, [phone].  A current draft of the
article, which is 81 pages long, is available for $5 from Arizona
Toxics Information, P.O. Box 1896, Bisbee, AZ 85603, [phone].

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS COUNTER "GREENWASH"

     There have been persistent rumors that the most recent drafts
of the NAFTA are replete with language designed to appease U.S.
Congressional concerns regarding the potential environmental impact
of an agreement.  News reports now indicate, in fact, that a
"breakthough" has been made in the form of the adoption of
environmental language by the negotiators.

     U.S. environmental and consumer organizations such as the
Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen have denounced
this language, however, as "Greenwash."  It is their understanding
that this language is the same as that contained in the GATT
Uruguay Round draft on the issue of food-safety standards, a
proposal that they have already denounced as unacceptable.

     A group of thirteen U.S. environmental organizations have
written a paper entitled "Environmental Safeguards for the North
American Free Trade Agreement," which presents its priority
recommendations on what would be adequate treatment of
environmental issues within a NAFTA.  They begin by noting that the
Bush Administration's actions to date on the environment and NAFTA
have been limited to publishing two reports: the Integrated Border
Environment Plan (IBEP), written by the EPA and its Mexican
counterpart agency, SEDUE, and the Environmental Review of U.S.-
Mexico Environmental Issues (ER), prepared by USTR.  They assert
that these reports "do not inspire confidence that NAFTA
implementation will proceed with adequate environmental
safeguards," and that those safeguards belong within the NAFTA
itself, rather than in any parallel accord or plan.

     The group proposes that a North American Commission on Trade
and the Environment monitor and report on the enforcement of
environmental regulations and investigate and act on violations.
The commissioners would come from each of the three countries and
include representatives of national and local non-governmental
environmental organizations.  All Commission members would be
required to have demonstrated expertise on environmental matters
and would "not have a vested economic interest in trade and
investment arising from this agreement.

     The Commission, as proposed in this paper, would receive
complaints  from  governments, NGOs and citizens "concerning the
failure of any Party to enforce environmental laws or to abide by
international environmental agreements."  All Commission meetings
and reports would be accessible to the public, but not the identity
of the complainants, which would be confidential at their request.
The paper also recommends that local citizen committees be
established in each country to report to the Commission on local
environmental issues.

     The paper continues with recommendations geared to ensure that
environmental standards are not compromised by the trade agreement.
These include the broadening of exemptions to enable the adoption
or enforcement of measures to protect natural resources, as long as
those measures do not "constitute a means of arbitrary
discrimination between like products or production practices."
Similarly, the group suggests language that would safeguard
existing and future sanitary and phytosanitary measures, as well as
technical standards and regulations, so long as they do not
arbitrarily discriminate against imports.  It also proposes wording
to guarantee that nothing in a NAFTA would prevent or undermine the
implementa-tion of international environmental agreements.

     The authors also suggest language on the process of dispute
resolution that would place the burden of proof in disputes
involving environmental and/or public-health standards on the
challenger, rather than on the challenged country, as is now the
practice.  Citizens and NGOs would be permitted to participate in
these cases, and environmental experts would be given a central
role in resolving disputes.

     Finally, the group proposes that language be included in a
NAFTA that commits the three countries to provide sufficient
funding to fully implement environmental laws throughout the
continent.  Funding sources could include user fees, corporate
income taxes and other direct and indirect taxes.

Source:  "Environmental Safeguards for the North American Free
Trade Agreement," prepared by Arizona Toxics Information, Border
Ecology Project, Center for International Environmental Law - U.S.,
Community Nutrition Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental
Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy, National Audobon Society, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Public Citizen, Sierra Club and Texas Center for Policy
Studies, June 1992.


** End of text from cdp:carnet.mexnews **

/** carnet.mexnews: 125.6 **/
** Written  2:14 pm  Jul 29, 1992 by dgap in cdp:carnet.mexnews **
THE NEGOTIATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:
AN UNFAVORABLE PATH FOR MEXICO
A summary of a preliminary analysis from Mexico of the "Dallas
Draft"

Editor's note: The following article is a translation of " Las
Negociaciones del TLC, un Rumbo Desfavorable para Mexico," from
Alternativas, the newsletter of the Mexican Action Network on Free
Trade (RMALC).  We will continue to exchange articles with the
RMALC for publication in future issues of our respective
newsletters.

     The document that RMALC has obtained and made public is a
draft of the official free-trade document. The declarations of the
Mexican authorities regarding the supposed lack of authenticity of
the Dallas Draft lack any legitimacy, as is demonstrated by the
affirmations of Canadian and United States authorities who have
reiterated on many occasions that the Dallas Draft is the official
document.

     The RMALC, fulfilling its obligation to the Mexican society,
has made the official document available to the public.  The level
of detail of this document, however, is not the responsibility of
the Network, but reflects the state of negotiations. It gives
insights into what has been negotiated and permits us to identify
the key points of the negotiations. It is the responsibility of
official negotiators not only to provide information about the
draft that is now in our hands (and to explain the lack of honesty
in official declarations) but also to maintain open channels of
information about possible changes produced by the discussions.

     Once the document was known, the Network reiterated its
position with respect to the NAFTA being negotiated by the
governments of Mexico, the United States and Canada. First, the
Network demands that the Mexican society be informed periodically
of what the authorities are negotiating. The Dallas document not
only reaffirms doubts regarding the possible dangers of a secret
negotiation of such scope, but it also opens new and profound
concerns about what is being negotiated. On the other hand, it is
crucial to point out that the Network does not oppose the
diversification of our country's trade relations, or the signing of
a development pact that contemplates the expansion of trade, but
that clearly recognizes the asymmetries of the contracting
countries and favors a Social Agenda over the Corporate Agenda. It
is evident  that  the  NAFTA  that  is  currently  being negotiated
does not contain these elements and consequently does not respond
to the interests of the civil societies in the three countries.
Therefore the Network reiterates its rejection of the NAFTA that
the authorities are now negotiating.

General considerations about the document:

* The document contains various degrees of detail.  There are parts
that are completely bracketed and other parts -- fewer in number --
with a basic text with few, but important, differences, which
demonstrates the slowness of the negotiations.

* The text does not include the advances made in areas of
fundamental importance for Mexico such as energy, the automotive
industry and unfair trade practices.  This makes us contemplate the
existence of negotiations at different levels of confidentiality,
which represents a major risk for the civil societies of the three
countries.

* Canada and the U.S. do not recognize the asymmetries among the
three countries, which confirms doubts with respect to the supposed
impartiality of the negotiations.

* The clause referred to as "national treatment" is present
throughout the text and demonstrates the latent danger in the
negotiations of offering great opportunities to North American
transnational corporations to the detriment of Mexico's sovereignty
and right of self-determination.

* The document does not include any kind of concrete and effective
measure to guarantee that the civil society is protected from the
possible risks resulting from the implementation of a NAFTA
(regarding employment, social security, housing, the environment,
etc.), which demonstrates that the Social Agenda has been excluded
from the NAFTA negotiations.

Specific considerations about the document:

The Network presents below the preliminary results of its analysis
of some of the points in the February draft.

1. Objectives and Scope:
-There is disagreement on the level of obligation required under a
NAFTA.  Therefore, the degree of commitment among the three
countries is not clear.
-The specific methods by which the the differences among the three
countries will be taken into account are not clear.
-The conditions for "national priority," which create exceptions
for some agreements within the NAFTA, are not specified.

2. Investments:
-The chapter annuls Mexico's Foreign Investment Law.
-It limits the role of the state to one of administrator and
promoter of national investment.
-National benefits can not be demanded from foreign investments
established in Mexico. Complete freedom is given for the exporting
of profits and for making intra-firm purchases, etc.

3. Rules of Origin:
-There are disagreements here on the conceptual issue (the
definition of a  rule of origin) and the quantitative issue (the
Americans are attempting to increase the percentage of national
content above 50%, while on the Mexican side they want to decrease
it). There is no clarity on the specification of costs (labor and
non-labor, i.e., ecological), which does not guarantee the
recognition of asymmetries and how to surmount them.  This would
favor the continuation of the  comparative advantages that Mexico
possesses today: low wages, deficient legislation on labor and the
environment, etc.

4. Market Access:
-The absence of cited annexes is apparent (regarding groups of
products and timing), which makes one reflect on where these issues
are being negotiated.
-The Mexican position makes reforms in national legislation
imminent due to the concessions on "national treatment."

5. Intellectual Property Rights:
-The negotiations undermine the right to develop policies on
scientific and technological matters.
-The negotiations represent a threat to the cultural identity of
our country.
-There are no regulations that guarantee access to state-of-the-art
and ecologically sustainable technologies.

6. Safeguards:
-These are only considered in cases of emergency (due to increases
in imports) for the protection of producers, disregarding the
protection of the environment and the consumer.
-There is no agreement on the methods that would yield any
safeguarding measures -- not even in those instances when there
should be intervention.

7. Agriculture:
-The implementation of clauses related to subsidies and permits
would remove most basic grain producers from the market.
-Mexican production would be restricted to the production of
tropical fruits and vegetables.
-The functions of the Secretary of Agriculture and Water Resources
are put on the negotiating table.

8. Telecommunications:
-There is an absence of mechanisms to assure access to state-of-
the-art technology in this sector, in addition to the fact that
there is no recognition of productive inequalities.
-There is resistance to recognizing the limitations in Mexico's
constitution regarding granting access to telecommunications only
through government concessions.
Translated by Hugo Llamas, The Development GAP.



** End of text from cdp:carnet.mexnews **