NAFTA's Passionate Critic

The sidewalks were so narrow and in such disrepair that walking on the street at times offered less risk of bodily injury. The streets are only a few metres wide, barely enough for two cars to pass -- no room in fact, if there are parked cars along the crowded streets -- but this does not affect the behaviour or speed of the motorists. I feel the warm rush of a breeze slap at my jacket every time a compact car races by me. I jump up on the sidewalk to pass by a long line of parked cars and the jump back down onto the street to avoid a hole in the sidewalk filled with rusty rebar. Back up onto the sidewalk to cross an intersection, down to cross the street, up on the other side. My morning workout, I smiled.

I knew that we must be nearly at our destination since there was little of the city left to cross. A few blocks ahead the street ended and a mountain rose into the sky. Tin shacks dotted the hillside and I wondered about their purpose; surely they could not be houses. I looked around for glass office buildings but there were none, just more and more of these colourful houses fashioned from adobe or concrete blocks. Many have large gated entries through which they can drive their cars and nearly every one of these is closed and locked. The city's devotion to household security made me uneasy since it implied that to live well, one must turn their home into a fortress.

"It's to your right," Jody called out from behind us.


I crossed the street and saw the CIEPAC sign hanging in front of a gated entry just below a bouganvillia dripping its blossoms onto the sidewalk. I walked to the gate of CIEPAC and stood beneath the blossoms inhaling deeply as they released their perfume to me. For one instant I remembered the cold winter I left behind and then quickly returned to reprimand myself for leaving the moment. I stood in the shade of the bouganvillia and watched as the rest of our group arrived at the gates of CIEPAC.
Jodi poked at the buzzer to let the staff know that we had arrived.

We walked through the gate and entered the small adobe house that served as the offices of CIEPAC.

"Through the kitchen, out the door and turn left," directed the young dark-haired woman behind the front desk.

The kitchen door opened to a concrete walkway that ran the length of the home. I turned left and headed towards a terrace at the back of the house. On my right was a ten-foot wall that barricaded the property of CIEPAC. At the end of the terrace was a small trailer fashioned into a schoolroom of sorts with two tables arranged end-to-end surrounded by a collection of mismatched chairs. Maps and posters covered the walls. Brochures, videos and piles of paperwork littered the tables and shelves and a large whiteboard defined the front of the room.

Within minutes we were introduced to Miguel who gave us each a copy of Eduardo Porter's article in the New York Times, "NAFTA Is a Sweet Deal, So Why Are They So Sour?"

"Please take a few minutes to read this article and then we'll get started," he said.

Miguel's parents were Americans who visited Mexico during a vacation one winter and decided to relocate there. Miguel and his sister were raised in Mexico he explained, and while he opted to stay, his sister returned to the United States and neither she nor her children are interested in returning. It has been years since they have seen each other. In stark contrast to his sister, Miguel's life in Mexico left him with a deep sense of solidarity for the Mexican people and, in particular, the people of Chiapas. Perhaps this is why he decided to stay and found a life at the Center for Economic and Political Research for Community Action - CIEPAC. The Center was founded in 1998 as a civil organization "that accompanies social movements in Chiapas, Mexico and Mesoamerica, as well as the global struggles that seek to build a more democratic world, with justice and dignity for all. Its principle activities are research, information-dissemination, education, training and analysis."

We began by reviewing the history of Mexico, the influence of the United States of America and globalization. We explored the history of developed countries and how they rose to power and how politics influenced their successes and lesser successes. We explored the struggles of developing countries and the least developed countries and discussed the hurdles they face as the climb the ladder towards "development." In the end, the group was met with the idea that developed, developing and under-developed countries each have a role in maintaining a balance in preserving our planet.

We talked about the influence that developed countries have on other developing nations.

Mexico has a huge population of lower-class families and it is seeing emerging trends in health issues that are normally prevalent in developed nations -- for example childhood
obesity and childhood diabetes. Coca Cola set up a number of bottling plants
in Mexico and now offers resale at metropolitan and rural locations throughout the country. Miguel talked a little about Coca Cola's corporate history as I sat and nodded in total agreement. (See my archive blog about corporate criminals for more information about Coca Cola). CEIPAC has begun a country wide boycott of Coca Cola, travelling to schools and communities to educate them about the negative impact this sugary soft drink is having on the health of the nation's children.

"Just think," Miguel explained, "what a country requires in terms of resources in order to feed its development."

Industry requires raw products and energy in order to operate and it invariably produces pollutants that filter their way through our soil and air. We imagined what the planet would be like if the number of developed countries doubled and soon realized that it was not possible to imagine a developed planet. While we pondered this party-pooping idea of Miguel's he quickly turned the conversation back to Mexico.

"Mexico's biggest import at present is its labour workforce," explained Miguel. "During the past 10 years, 25% of the rural population has left the country. Twenty-five percent."

We silently pondered the figure and I tried to recall the country's population -- 100 million or 103 million, I thought. If 20 million lived in Mexico City, that still left 80 million or so. At even 50% of these 80 million people living in cities (and I think that's a high estimate) that leaves 40 million people living in rural Mexico. My math led me to an estimate of 10 million people. Ten million people left Mexico during the past ten years. That's an average of one million a year.

"They are leaving to find jobs in America because there are few opportunities here in Mexico. While the leaders promised many jobs once NAFTA became effective, those jobs never materialized," lamented Miguel. "What's more, the SPPNA is the militarization of NAFTA and the next meeting is in April of this year."

"SPPNA?"

"Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America. It's not a single negotiated treaty, but rather a series of legislations signed by the Executive Branch of the three governments. The tri-national summit is scheduled to take place in New Orleans on April 21 and 22. Prosperity Partnership, doesn't that sound nice? It means that because Canada and Mexico are geographical buffers to possible terrorists wishing to infiltrate the USA, the US border is de-facto those of North America. "

Cynics refer to the SPPNA as plot to dissolve the union. I read while investigating this further that, W. Bush’s national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, said that, "in the event of foreign aggression or another Sept. 11 attack, the defense of the three countries would be unified (needless to say) under U.S. command. In other words, the accord — which is little known in Canada — foresees that the armed forces of Mexico and Canada shall become subservient to those of the United States." Does that mean I get a vote for the US President?

"Go home, research the SPPNA and draw your own conclusions," advised Miguel, "but consider how this deep integration will further impact North American relations."

"We don't have a lot of time left Miguel, but I was hoping you would talk to the group about Chapter 11," said Jody.

"Chapter 11," said Miguel, "oh yes, Chapter 11. Well, NAFTA is a huge document about economic liberalization that neither you nor I would ever read. Inside that document is Chapter 11 which addresses barriers to investment. Now, Chapter 11 was intended to protect investors in case foreign governments tried to seize their property but the wording in that chapter has left a loophole that allows private industry to launch large multinational lawsuits. Ralph Nader has devoted a website to Chapter 11 lawsuits."

In 1990, a Mexican Company called Coterin received authorization from the Mexican government to operate a toxic dump in the State of San Luis Potosi but was denied a municipal permit in 1991 by Guadalcazar. In 1993, a California-based company called Metalclad purchased Coterin and once again tried to acquire permits to open a toxic dump site in San Luis Potosi. The threat to the environment was clear and inarguable and the residents were passionate about keeping their environment safe. (Miguel said that they threatened to string the mayor up by his throat if he issued the permit.) In 1997, Metalclad sued the Mexican government for $90 million claiming that the actions of the municipality amounted to expropriation without compensation. What's more, Metalclad claimed the government of Mexico failed to fair and equitable treatment in accordance with international law. A NAFTA tribunal awarded Metalclad $16,685,000.

UPS is based in Atlanta, Georgia and has been in business since 1907 -- UPS Canada has been operational since 1975. In 1981, Canada Post was transformed from a government department to a Crown Corporation which is a publicly owned corporation. In 1993, Canada Post bought Purolator Courier which was Canada's leading overnight delivery courier company making Canada Post the fifth largest employer in Canada. In 1999, UPS filed suit for $160 million claiming that Canada Post was in violation of NAFTA's Chapter 11 and NAFTA Chapter 15 on competition policy, monopolies and state-run enterprises. The foundation of the lawsuit is a claim that Canada Post abuses its special monopoly status by utilizing its infrastructure to cross-subsidize its parcel and courier services. (I would like to point out that it costs more money to send a parcel by Canada Post than by UPS, Canpar or DHL. The only more expensive courier service is, in fact, Purolator -- with the exception of possibly FedEx.) There's more to it but you can read it for yourself. In essence, UPS claims that the very existence of Canada Post violates its rights under NAFTA.

"You mean there is nothing in Chapter 11 that protects the environmental or social policies of the government against private industry?" I asked.

"No," was Miguel's simple answer.

There are more lawsuits. In fact, during the first seven years of NAFTA, at least 12 investors have invoked the provisions of Chapter 11 to pursue claims against one of the three governments for compensation. The US has been targeted as well, though it has fared much better than Canada and Mexico.

I felt very naive as I sat and listened to Miguel. How is it that I was unaware of SPPNA? How did I not hear about Chapter 11 lawsuits? Well, I was aware of Ketcham's lawsuit against Canada's Softwood Lumber Agreement, but I didn't make the connection to Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

I smiled at the irony. I had to travel to San Cristobal to learn about my country. I was learning more about North American trade in Mexico than I had ever learned at home.