SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
enrique pena nieto
AMLO Goes Full Throttle Against Neoliberalism--But What About NAFTA?
Mexico’s first left-wing president gave a fiery inaugural speech against neoliberalism in Mexico. But he barely mentioned NAFTA.
Dec 17, 2018
I had the great fortune to attend the inauguration of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (or AMLO, as he is known) as the 58th Mexican president on December 1. The atmosphere at the Legislative Palace was electric with the knowledge that Mexico would be beginning its "Fourth Transformation" -- following its 1810 independence, the 1855 reformation, and the 1910 revolution -- with the first left-wing presidency in its history.
It was AMLO's third attempt at the office. In 2006 Felipe Calderon orchestrated a cyber fraud that gave him a slim advantage over AMLO. And in order to win in 2012, outgoing president Enrique Pena Nieto engaged in tricks like giving away cash-loaded bank cards.
When AMLO arrives following his 2018 victory, his supporters chanted Si se pudo: "Yes we could!"
AMLO started his speech off by going full throttle against neoliberalism and corruption in Mexico, both of which he's fought for decades. He said the crisis in Mexico originated not only because of the failure of the neoliberal economic model, but also because of the "deep predominance during this period of the dirtiest display of public and private corruption."
Outgoing President Pena Nieto sat stoically, looking uncomfortable at times.
The new president explained how Mexico's economy grew from the end of the revolution in 1917 to the end of the 1970s at rates of 5 to 6 percent a year. With the neoliberal period starting in the 1980s came the debacle. It was marked by low growth, inflation, and indebtedness. Even after endless privatization schemes, the national debt reached 10 trillion pesos -- the equivalent of over $500 billion, more than 42 percent of Mexico's GDP -- under Pena Nieto who sank down further in his chair when the subject came up.
AMLO rambled on against neoliberalism for quite a while. He said that another "pearl" of this model is the "privatizations and the corruption, the former being synonymous with the latter." He explained how neoliberal policies have made Mexico a net importer of basic food staples like corn, how Mexican salaries have lost 60 percent of their purchasing power, and how Mexico became the one of the leading sources of out-migration in the world -- such that 24 million Mexicans live in the United States, according to him.
"Political and economic power have fed and nurtured each other," he concluded, "which has led to the robbery of the people's property as well as the wealth of the nation." Pena Nieto undoubtedly felt that at that moment all eyes were on him.
A Long Career
This was AMLO at his best. The script was completely his. Despite having created a mixed cabinet -- one that includes pro-business people such as cabinet chief Alfonso Romo -- for the purpose of helping him keep the trust of "the markets" during the exceedingly long six-month transition period, AMLO took the bull by its horns and made it clear what he has stood for all his political life.
As far back as 1991, he led rallies in his home state of Tabasco denouncing electoral fraud by the ruling party. Later he fought the privatization of Mexico's oil state company PEMEX, denounced the Savings Protection Banking Fund (FOBAPROA) scheme that bailed out bankers at the expense of the Mexican people, and left the Institutional Revolution Party (that monopolized political power for decades) to form with Cuauhtemoc Cardenas the Democratic Revolution Party (that has now almost disappeared).
As mayor of Mexico City from 2000 to 2005, he initiated social programs to help the elderly and the handicapped, improved access to free medicines and schools, and ensured the construction of new preparatory schools -- and even a new university -- for Mexico City's most disadvantaged sectors of society. He even had a new hospital built after decades of inaction from previous governments.
Eventually AMLO's own PRD became corrupted, complicit with privatization schemes and anti-union reforms. So AMLO left it and formed the MORENA (Movement of National Regeneration) party, which now has a majority in both houses of the national legislature.
Moreover, MORENA won four states (out of eight that had elections this year), and several municipalities and big cities -- including the biggest local prize, Mexico City, which elected a woman for the first time: Claudia Sheinbaum. MORENA offers the most gender-balanced governments and legislatures, and AMLO's cabinet does as well.
But What About NAFTA?
With such political favorable scenario, I have no doubt that AMLO can deliver on promises to help Mexico overcome decades of increasing inequality, rampant poverty, and forced migration.
But one thing gives me pause.
In his acceptance speech against neoliberalism, he mentioned NAFTA only once. He said he, president Trump, and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau were talking about how to go beyond NAFTA and "reach an investment agreement among companies and governments of the three countries to foster development of Central American countries and also ours," which he pitched as a "non-forcible" way to address "the migratory phenomenon."
However, AMLO didn't mention the recently concluded U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), aka NAFTA 2.0. Why would AMLO not tackle NAFTA more forcefully when this agreement has been the backbone of neoliberalism, and the cause of migration of millions of Mexicans to the United States?
Now that President Trump threatens to cancel NAFTA if legislators in the United States don't immediately ratify the "new" version, AMLO and his MORENA party have a golden opportunity to get rid of it once and for all.
That's exactly what Mexican civil society coalitions like Mexico Better off Without FTAs have been calling for.
It wouldn't be a disaster for Mexico. Our trade with the United States would revert to WTO rules, which are similar to NAFTA's. But withdrawing would effectively eliminate many other rules found in NAFTA (and apparently in the USCMA) that go well beyond trade. Those rules have handcuffed the Mexican government's capacity to promote the Mexican economy, particularly in the countryside; support the livelihoods of indigenous people; expand the provision of affordable medicines; and protect the environment.
The MORENA party and AMLO should be very vigilant. They must wait until the Mexican Senate receives the official text of the USMCA in Spanish (Pena Nieto's government pretended to "inform" the public with a propagandistic summary while the unfinished text remained only in English), and then should carry out an official consultation with all social and economic sectors.
AMLO has promised a series of consultations for development and infrastructure projects in Mexico. Good. He also consulted about the name of the new NAFTA -- Trump's "USMCA," rebranding that consciously put the United States first -- and rechristened it T-MEC (Tratado Mexico, Estados Unidos, Canada). Not so good, because it looks more like Trump-MEC. And it was Trump who pushed this new agreement on everyone.
More importantly, consulting people merely about the name of the renewed NAFTA is a serious shortcoming. What's needed is a much broader consultation about all aspects of Mexico's economy and society that have been, and will be, impacted by such an agreement.
In sum, there should be no ratification of the USMCA until the public has had an opportunity to read and discuss the official text already signed by Trump, Pena Nieto, and Trudeau -- on Pena Nieto's last day in office.
AMLO and MORENA represent a great hope for Mexicans. Opening the new NAFTA, before it's ratified, to broad and binding consultation with the Mexican people would be a bold first step. Not doing so -- and ratifying with haste -- would be giving in to neoliberalism and its corrupt practice of passing these agreements behind peoples' backs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
NAFTA 2.0 Signed: A Deal for 'The Corporate One Percent'
The new deal, says Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), does "not do nearly enough to raise wages for workers, lower costs for healthcare consumers, or protect the environment."
Nov 29, 2018
Simply put, "The NAFTA 2.0 text is not the transformational replacement of the corporate-rigged trade-pact model that progressive activists, unions, and congressional Democrats have long demanded," wrote Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.
Inked by the North American leaders on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, the deal, formally called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in the U.S., comes after more than a year of negotiations. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland noted that the signing follows "what has been, at times, a difficult process." As The Toronto Star reported:
Trudeau's government has informally referred to the new agreement as a new NAFTA, noting that much of the original remains in place. Trump, who has called NAFTA the worst trade deal in world history, has wrongly insisted he is terminating NAFTA and replacing it with something entirely new.
Given that continuity, a number of family farm organizations from the U.S. and Canada including the National Farmers Union Canada and the U.S.-based National Family Farm Coalition have urged a better deal, one "that promotes fair and sustainable food systems." Unmet in the new deal, they say, are their demands to "restore local and national sovereignty over farm and food policy; stop corporate giveaways in trade agreements; and ensue economic viability and resilience in rural communities."
"This New NAFTA is a huge missed opportunity," said Karen Hansen-Kuhn, director of Trade and Global Governance at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "Family farm groups in all three countries insisted on new rules to rebuild rural economies and food systems. Instead, we have a deal that locks in many of the old rules that have driven farmers out of agriculture for more than two decades."
\u201cDon't believe the hype on the New NAFTA. This is still a #BadDeal for farmers, workers and the environment! https://t.co/E3KUyvzQ8w\u201d— Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) (@Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)) 1543599163
The Council of Canadians' honorary chairperson Maude Barlow, meanwhile, said the deal in its current form has "many poison pills."
A positive development, added the group's trade campaigner Sujata Dey, was that some of their long-standing demands had been met. "The Council of Canadians was among the first to draw attention to how Chapter 11 would harm our ability to bring in public interest policy and legislation. Now, it is gone--at least between Canada and the U.S."
"But in the closed door negotiations of the USMCA, corporations came up with new rights: powers for corporations to monitor and change regulations before they see the light of day in areas that could affect food safety, chemicals, environmental regulations and other matters of public safety," Dey explained. "The agreement also supports higher drug prices because of Big Pharma protectionism and allows attacks on farmers and Crown corporations. Again, free trade is a goody bag for corporations. Why must we constantly sign agreements that empower the corporate one percent at the expense of the rest of us?"
It's not the end of the road for the deal. As Hansen-Kuhn stated, "Signing this new NAFTA is just one more step in a bad process." The deal still needs approval from the three countries' legislatures. In the U.S., as Politico notes, that could mean "months of fierce debate between the Trump administration and Congress."
Already, some U.S. lawmakers have announced their opposition to NAFTA 2.0.
Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, for one, said ahead of the signing that it does "not do nearly enough to raise wages for workers, lower costs for healthcare consumers, or protect the environment," and that barring major changes, the deal "will result in more broken promises by Donald Trump to American workers."
In addition, she said, the deal as is "would not only raise drug prices in Canada and Mexico, but would tie Congress' hands, preventing us from enacting essential reforms needed to lower prescription drug prices."
Denouncing the deal's "outrageous giveaways to the fossil fuel industry and big pharmaceutical companies," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) conveyed his opposition as well. "Unless strong enforcement mechanisms are written into the text of this agreement, corporations will continue to ship U.S. jobs to Mexico where workers are paid as little as $2 an hour."
"Before this deal is sent to Congress for a vote," Sanders said, "it must include strong enforcement mechanisms to increase jobs and wages and all of the riders that benefit big fossil fuel polluters and pharmaceutical companies must be taken out of it."
According to Hansen-Kuhn, "Legislatures in all three countries should insist that negotiators go back to the drawing board or reject this new NAFTA all together."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Forging His Own Gaza on the Southern Border
The Trump administration has sought to militarize the region from the start
Nov 26, 2018
When a crowd is exposed to tear gas, an aerosol containing the chemical agent 2-chlorobenzaldene malononitrile (CS), nasal passages begin to run, eyes water uncontrollably and breathing grows short and painful. Those directly exposed can experience vomiting or diarrhea. Effects take hold within 30 seconds, and the symptoms can last up to 10 minutes, even after the air has cleared or the afflicted have managed to scramble to safety.
U.S. Border Patrol agents have fired upon Central American migrants and their toddlers in Tijuana, Mexico, seeking asylum in the United States--an act of aggression that almost certainly violates international law.
For these reasons, nearly every nation in the world banned the compound's use in warfare under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. Yet despite ratifying these agreements, the United States continues to utilize tear gas for domestic riot control. Police shot dozens of canisters at protesters over several days in Ferguson, Mo., and now U.S. Border Patrol agents have fired upon Central American migrants and their toddlers in Tijuana, Mexico, seeking asylum in the United States--an act of aggression that almost certainly violates international law.
When President Donald Trump announced that he would be deploying soldiers to the southern border, in numbers that seemed to swell in direct proportion to the fever of his campaign rallies, the media eagerly enabled his hysteria, treating the arrival of a few hundred refugees as an impending alien invasion. And while Nicholas Kristof has since acknowledged that The New York Times allowed itself to be manipulated ahead of a midterm election, few appear willing to confront the darker reality this assault has laid bare: The Trump administration has sought to militarize the region from the start.
In January of 2017, mere days after Trump was sworn into office, Bloomberg published a report detailing Magal Security Systems' offer to construct the president's long-promised wall. (Shares in the company soared 50 percent following the 2016 presidential election.) During a conference on border security, the company presented its Fiber Patrol product to officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, among others. Previously, Magal Security Systems had constructed Israel's border wall with Gaza, as well as a fence separating the country from Egypt.
That August, amid a tense meeting with then Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto over who might fund such a construction, Trump made a confession of sorts. "You know, you look at Israel," a transcript of the conversation reveals him saying. "Israel has a wall and everyone said do not build a wall, walls do not work--99.9 percent of people trying to get across that wall cannot get across anymore. ... Bibi Netanyahu told me the wall works."
"Israel has a wall and everyone said do not build a wall, walls do not work--99.9 percent of people trying to get across that wall cannot get across anymore. ... Bibi Netanyahu told me the wall works."
While a physical wall will likely go unfunded with Democrats now controlling the House of Representatives, the president has nonetheless achieved its central aim. By separating children from their migrant parents at the border, the Trump administration has exerted its dominance over a vulnerable population, and signaled to its supporters that it will not simply accept white nationalism as a byproduct of American empire but embrace it as a matter of public policy. As of October, administration officials had failed to reunite hundreds of these children with their mothers and fathers, months after a court-imposed deadline to do so.
In recent weeks, the U.S. military has laid down miles of concertina barbed wire along the U.S. border with Mexico as part of Operation Faithful Patriot. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis has since dropped the name of the mission on the grounds that it was too military sounding; when asked if the troops planned to remove the wiring, he replied, "We'll let you know."
It seems increasingly unlikely. During a recent stop in Montana, Trump gushed over the work of the U.S. military along the border, the new tracts of fencing in particular. "Mexico is trying, they are trying but we're different, we have our military on the border," he said. "And I noticed all that beautiful barbed wire going up today. Barbed wire, used properly, can be a beautiful sight."
If decades of U.S. foreign policy have shaped the migrant caravan, from President Ronald Reagan's violent maneuverings in Nicaragua and El Salvador during the waning days of the Cold War to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's assistance in the Honduran coup of 2009, the crisis currently unfolding in Tijuana is almost entirely of the Trump administration's making. "Trump's border policy has squeezed asylum seekers at both ends," observes Vox's Dara Lind. "Officials stress that migrants ought to present themselves legally at ports of entry, while asylum seekers at ports are forced to wait days or weeks for entry to the US, and President Donald Trump himself says they shouldn't be coming at all."
For the president and his enablers, that a refugee's method of entering the country has no bearing on his or her claims to asylum is ultimately irrelevant. As is so often the case in this administration, the cruelty is the point. Trump has since threatened to shut down the Mexican border "permanently," an act of dubious legality that, coupled with acts of violent suppression, would only further Gaza-fy the southern border. This was the idea all along.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular