NAFTA


In my own little survey among friends, not a single person polled was either enthusiastically for or against NAFTA. Nobody knows for sure. Even the most virulent anti-Reagan-Bush type liberals give pause to the possibility that "free trade" might mean better economies both north and south of the Rio Grande River. But, at the same time, they are worried about the environment, US labor losses and increased serfdom among Mexican workers. Conservatives, of whom there were few in my survey, traditionally bedfellows of business, are generally in favor of NAFTA as it clearly affords them both cheap real estate and cheap labor. But the point is that there is widespread ambivalence.

Obviously, there are economic subtleties in this thing which perhaps only Nobel Laureates can understand, but for the rest of us we must deal with the experiences and facts as we know them. And one such fact, known to many of us, is the indisputable, onerous, politically-incorrect-to-talk-about-in-public, existence of corruption in Mexico, and Latin America in general. So far, this issue has not been raised (although implied ever so slightly by Mr. Perot. Nobody wants to touch this hot tamale. But it is there and as anyone who has driven a car through Mexico knows, it is pandemic. It is as much a part of Latin America as bad water and the "runs".

Let me tell a story told to me by a very wealthy Ecuadorian banker as we flew from Mexico City to Quito.... "The three finance ministers from Ecuador, Venezuela and Mexico were meeting in Mexico one day and the Mexican said, "you know that new airport terminal you came into today? Fifty million dollars." and the other two nodded and the Mexican winked and patted his breast pocket and said, "Twenty percent." A few months later these same three dignitaries were meeting in Caracas and the Venezuelan said to his friends, "You know that new freeway you drove along coming into town? Seventy-five million dollars." and the other two nodded and the man from Caracas patted his breast pocket and said, "Sixty percent." Well, the next year these same three men met in Quito and as they sat high above the city the Ecuadorian official said, "You see that hydro-electric project over there?" and he pointed across the valley, "two hundred million dollars!" The other two looked and squinted into the haze and could see nothing but the cancerous sprawl of shantytowns and the Ecuadorian finance minister patted his breast pocket and said with a privy smile, "One hundred percent."

In its various forms, this is a well-known joke in Latin America. It is not a racist, Yankee, capitalist-pig joke. But the grain (or boulder) of truth in it must nevertheless be factored into the NAFTA agreements. (Incidentally, I am not completely unaware of the existence of corruption on Wall Street either; after all, there is something inherently corrupt in free, unregulated capitalism itself: to wit, "The Robber Barons," we read about in any American History textbook. Capitalism is like boxing; it's a great sport but we need gloves and referees.)

But, corruption is such a joke in Mexico that when the Federal Narcotics patrol stops you along the highway, bristling in their black swat-team uniforms and automatic weapons and they look at your papers which are all in order, they smile and say, "And now some money please." If you don't believe me, just drive through Mexico someday. At least they smile. And of course your papers are in order because you paid somebody 200 dollars back at the border to make sure they would be in order, (and presumably, to be sure nobody would search your truck.)

One day, many years ago, during the Christmas season I was stopped three times in Mexico City for "going too fast, being in the wrong lane and not signaling properly." Each offense cost me about ten dollars. OK, no big deal and a nice Christmas bonus for the local constabulary. Last year I was stopped several times just trying to drive around Mexico City. My vehicle and my undisguised white face were irresistible to the Federales on their motorcycles and, one offense or another was fabricated and I was forced to pay two hundred dollars for the privilege of driving about thirty miles. Three different groups of policemen told me to pay the same fine, "one month’s salary" they said. Can you imagine such a childish, bogus penalty? But these same people or their friends or their relatives are going to be building inspectors, personnel directors, "environmental protection" agents and workplace safety standards inspectors when the ink dries on NAFTA. Am I really supposed to believe that mordida (payola) for which Mexico is famous in the Western Hemisphere, is going to disappear overnight? With development and improved standards of living, of course it will change eventually, but can the environment stand "eventually?" Can the people themselves wait for "eventually?" Can those people living in those wretched shacks around that factory which Ross Perot showed on Larry King, stand to wait for "eventually?"

That one picture incidentally, tells the whole story of many people's concern about NAFTA: an ugly, un-landscaped new North American factory surrounded by new, ugly shantytowns. It shows the worst of both worlds. First of all it shows the awful truth of unregulated capitalism -- whatever company that was, obviously had no concern whatsoever for the esthetics of their building, the surrounding environment or the living conditions of their workers. There is not a single community in the United States which would even consider the construction of a monstrosity like that much less without vast landscaping, parking lots, new access roads and an obvious concern for the local geography. I celebrate the so-called "side-agreements" of which Mr. Gore, whom I admire greatly, speaks, and they may address this issue satisfactorily, but again I ask about the corruption and then I ask, why weren't such things thought of in the original agreement, which leads me to believe the original agreement must have been pretty delinquent.

Then, when we consider the implications of that shantytown surrounding that new factory we must agree that yes, at least now those people have jobs. And with jobs their standard of living will improve, they will have enough to eat, a roof over their head, money for vitamins, clothes, schools and so on towards Utopia. Well, presumably, a bit further along the path toward lower-middle-class decency at least. Or so we are led to believe. But so did the throngs of people in England and the United States in the early years of the Industrial Revolution have jobs when they too moved to the city. Even little children had jobs and they could work for ten or twelve hours a day; and their mothers could work too and often the company had housing for them and stores where they could buy things on credit, and we all know the rest of the story. ("I owe my soul to the company store") I am not convinced that such jobs are better than staying back in the pueblo eating rice and beans with friends and family.

I'm not sure; I mean, basically, I believe that people should do what they want to do but, from my reading of history, human rights and urban sociology I am not one hundred percent convinced that industrialization and urbanization are necessarily good things. I think that if some of the old muckrakers like Jacob Riis and Lincoln Stephens were around today they would have some interesting observations to make on the notion that the industrialization of northern Mexico will boost the economy of both Mexico and the United States, raise the standard of living, stamp out corruption and have a generally salutary effect on western hemispheric economics. Of one thing I am absolutely certain. Industrialization is never, ever good for the environment. Personally, I cannot muster a lot of enthusiasm for this thing. I suspect it is just another monstrous scam to further the interests of Wall Street thinly disguised behind some self-aggrandizing (Capitalist) theories about "free trade" and global economics.