From TPM Reader ND:
I have been an avid reader of your blog for many years and was moved to email you because it seems to me that this whole discussion about NAFTA seems to be missing a key component.
A little background–I am a professor of political science and my focus is almost exclusively on Latin America and development issues. In this context it is almost hallucinatory to watch the debate about NAFTA, and the comments about it from newspapers to blogs (including a headline here in TPM about Mexican and Canadian reactions), that are completely uninformed about how the rest of the countries in this hemisphere view, frame and consider these trade agreements.
There is much discussion in academic circles about the effects of free trade agreements on developed economies–Dani Rodrik at Harvard is an excellent example of this– and I could write at least twenty pages on the different angles there are on this and which have played quite a lot in the media and to some extent in this election cycle. But there is also a very passionate debate about the effects of these agreements on developing countries, and this pops up here and there in the media but only in the context of anti WTO demonstrations.
In reality, passing trade agreements in Latin America is probably the hardest and most contentious policy decision a government can make. It is not just about anti Americanism, or a sovereignty issue, it has to do with concerns regarding social safety net programs that have to be cut, massive privatization programs, and all the regulations that guarantee safe working conditions, environmental compliance and good wages. So when Obama or Clinton talk about renegotiation it seems to be assumed that the other countries would NOT want to renegotiate and do NOT have the same concern about having enforcement of these issues. They do, even if renegotiation might be a hard pill to swallow politically because of the changed policy environment in the region.
To my mind what has been missing is an awareness of how contentious these agreements are and how they have been part of elections in these countries as well. If the press did a little of leg work they would have discovered that in 2006 the Mexican presidential election was very much about renegotiating NAFTA (the candidate most in favor of this, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, lost very narrowly).
Perhaps the best example is playing out in DC today–all the signatories of CAFTA-DR are giving Costa Rica (the most staunch ally of the united States in Latin America) an extra 7 months to be able to join the pact because even after 5 years of negotiation, of having signed it, of having approved it in a referendum last October, opposition parties in congress in CR are fighting tooth and nail to assure the guarantees that the candidates mentioned in the debate on Tuesday and that so far have not been included to these parties’ satisfaction.
With all the back and forth about Canada the big hemispheric picture seems to be missing. Just something I thought your readers should know.
