* Where are the jobs going?
You’ve probably heard of the World Trade Organization and the North-American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA is an agreement between Mexico, Canada and the U.S. that went into effect in 1994. While some larger U.S. corporations in selected industries have prospered handsomely because of it, some would say that U.S. jobs have hemorrhaged thanks to the agreement. Others fear that NAFTA sets up an “EU-like” transference of power from elected officials in a sovereign setting to a broader governance by officials with suspect right to power.
For example, several cases have been brought before a NAFTA tribunal, even after a U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on the subject. Consider the case of Mondev International Ltd (a Canadian company) vs. the United States of America, which involved the development of a shopping mall in Boston. The Massachusetts Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling against the City of Boston and the Boston Redevelopment Authority. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Game over? Nope. Mondev turned to a NAFTA tribunal for arbitration. In this case, the U.S. “won.” But it’s evident that the U.S. Supreme Court (and the U.S. Constitution which is the “supreme law of the land”) is clearly no longer the final authority.
Now the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) are both ready to be implemented in short order. CAFTA -similar to NAFTA – would set up a trade relationship between the Central American countries of Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.
The FTAA, introduced by President Bill Clinton at the 1994 Summit of the Americas in Miami (where else?), is supposed to bring together 34 nations of the western hemisphere (except Cuba) to foster economic progress by eliminating trade and investment obstacles between nations.
As you might imagine, there are a variety of proponents on either side of the CAFTA/FTAA fence. Some say that U.S. exports to just the Central American region alone would increase by $4 billion, creating 25,000 U.S. jobs. Other critics say that NAFTA has caused U.S. job losses, increased trade deficits and reduced wages in Mexico – why would we expect anything less from CAFTA and the FTAA?
Consider this: In June, Seneca Foods, an asparagus canner for General Mills (Green Giant) will close another cannery in southeastern Washington State. The company had already closed a cannery in 2003, right alongside a similar Del Monte closure. Asparagus represented a $30 million revenue stream to Washington. But no more. Why? Because workers in Peru make $5/day compared to $7.35/hour in Washington.
Maybe those Washingtonians who’ve lost their jobs can retool and get into software engineering. No wait, too risky. They might lose their jobs to India. How about pharmacy? Not a chance. Generic drugs and pharmaceuticals are a large target of trade agreements. They could work in a call center! Nope. Offshored already.
I’ve got it! Maybe they could become lawyers. Sounds like we might need some to argue cases that go before FTAA tribunals.
I’d like to hear your thoughts.
** CORRECTION: In last week’s newsletter, the correct URL for the Web site of Campaign Against Depleted Uranium should be https://www.cadu.org.uk/ . We apologize for the error.
