While actually “preceded by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA)
on January 1, 1989” (Hartman, 2013, 7), the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) was “negotiated during the late 1980s and early 1990s under George H.
W. Bush and became operational in the mid-1990s under the Clinton
administration” (Papp, Johnson, & Endicott, 2005, 420). NAFTA established a so-called free trade area
between the states of the United States, Canada, and Mexico by “eliminating tariffs
and other economic and noneconomic barriers” (Papp, Johnson, & Endicott,
2005, 420) in order to promote regional trade.
Supporters of the agreement suggested that the agreement was healthy for
expanding trade and could improve living conditions in all three states, but
critics warned that private sector “capital would move to Mexico to take
advantage of lower labor costs and lower environmental standards” (Papp,
Johnson, & Endicott, 2005, 421).
Free trade
zones such as NAFTA are established to strongly benefit the international
private sector under globalization and allow the regeneration of private sector
capital profits under vastly reduced or completely eliminated tariffs that
would normally be due to the states in which these capitalist entities operate
from and/or profit in through importing and exporting. Under these so-called free trade zones, a private
sector capitalist entity can extract natural resources from one developing
state, manufacture those natural resources into product in another state with
lower wage requirements, and finally move the finished product into a consumer
state for consumption and capital profit without ever paying tariffs to any of
the states involved. The statistics resulting
from free trade can be very tricky, so one must look closely.
Since NAFTA
began, “total U.S. employment has increased by 23 million jobs from 1994 to
2008” (Hartman, 2013, 16). While U.S. population
growth and non-NAFTA trade agreements by the U.S. certainly influenced this trend
in U.S. job increase, NAFTA and other U.S. trade agreements that have
removed state import/export tariffs have also allowed manufacturing jobs to
leave the United States for states such as Mexico with lower wage requirements
and be replaced in the United States by customer service jobs such as shipping,
retail, and jobs supported by consumerism.
This argument can be supported by the fact that Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) “into the United States has increased far more rapidly than
FDI into Mexico, implying that the jobs created by investment flows into the
United States far exceed the jobs lost due to capital flows into Mexico”
(Hartman, 2010, 16). These jobs may “far
exceed the jobs lost”, but they are not the same category of jobs and will
evaporate under an economic crisis or with the end of ignorant consumerism.
Mexico may
have inherited an increase in manufacturing job during the early phases of
NAFTA, but “there has been an actual decline in Mexican manufacturing
employment” (Hartman, 2010, 17) and “about 30% of the jobs that were created in
maquiladoras (export assembly plants) in the 1990s have since disappeared”
(Hartman, 2010, 17). This decline of
manufacturing jobs in Mexico is due to new technological advancements in
manufacturing that reduce the amount of human labor required for generating
profits by the capitalists, and new trade agreements allowing the private
sector to establish manufacturing efforts in other developing states with even
lower wage requirements. The poor
working conditions that the capitalist non-state entities establish in
developing states such as Mexico should also be noted. The NAFTA agreement itself “included a side
accord regarding labour rights and standards, although these provisions have
even fewer teeth than the EU measures” (Scholte, 2000, 168). In addition, “income inequality has been on
the rise in Mexico since NAFTA took effect” (Hartman, 2010, 20) and “compared
to the period before NAFTA, the top 10% of households have increased their
share of national income, while the other 90% have lost income share or seen no
change” (Hartman, 2010, 20). This is a
general characteristic shared by the majority of states touched, or slowly strangled,
by capitalism.
In closing,
neither NAFTA nor any of the other free trade agreements under globalization
strengthen the state for future sustainment or development. NAFTA and other free trade agreements are
established to transition capital regeneration from the state to the private
sector, and especially allow the private sector exploitation of so-called
developing states to take on very parasitic characteristics.
Resources
Daniel Papp, Loch Johnson & John Endicott. 2005. American Foreign Policy: History, Politics,
and Policy. New York, NY: Pearson
Scholte, Jan. 2000. Globalization: a Critical
Introduction. London, England: MacMillan.
Stephen W. Hartman.
2010. “NAFTA, the Controversy,” The
International Trade Journal 25, no. 1 (December 2010): 5-34, accessd December
28, 2013, https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/226023/Hartmann%20NAFTA%20Controversy.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment