NAFTA: A Silent Violation

We have no idea about the free trade agreement the Mexican government has agreed to with the American government under Donald Trump. What can we expect from a commercial treatment which Mexico bilaterally signed with the Trump administration? Mexico, the weakest of the three signatory countries,* hurried to move the treaty forward. So it sat at the table of that government, commanded by that deranged celebrity, because of that country’s economic power.

We will see what is offered by this commercial treaty, which the incoming government has said is the responsibility of the departing government, and about which the departing government says that representatives of the incoming government were present during the negotiations.** It will be justified with the argument that if the agreement was not made under those conditions, the situation confronting us would be catastrophic, that it was the lesser of two evils. Still, the question remains regarding whether it wouldn’t have been better to proceed with the negotiations in the presence of Canada, given the market that the two countries represent for the United States, and if it wouldn’t have been possible for a better negotiation than what we will see when the agreement goes to the U.S. Congress for ratification.

Beyond the issues of automobiles and the agriculture market, we have been allowed to see only two other areas of this treaty, and in those, it is possible to see Trump’s attack on the internal cultural policy and the health policy of our countries in order to subjugate them to the interests of the great United States corporations. It appears that these are only some examples of what appears to be an avalanche of abuses, but as examples, they demonstrate what Carlos Slim said, that Trump is a great negotiator. What he did not clarify was that the purpose of his great negotiating is to finish off his rivals.

The Canadians have denounced Trump and his administration’s intention to take down the great mechanism that they have created to strengthen their culture, to give priority to their own creations in television, in film and in music, in order to retain their identity. Canada cannot accept an agreement that damages its cultural identity, according to the foreign affairs minister. Trump wants free reign to invade Canada with even more of its multimillionaire Hollywood and television productions, without allowing that country the right to protect its identity and strengthen its culture and its artistic production.

With respect to strengthening culture in Mexico, we have already seen what the American invasion of our country has done. Where is the rich and diverse Mexican culture? In film, we see that the most celebrated Mexican creative talent has gone to the United States to produce because of the lack of support in our country; we have seen that the diversity of Mexico’s rich music has not found a place in the mass media; we have seen that splendid cultural expressions have no purpose aside from being distorted in advertisements. We have not seen policies in Mexico that protect cultural identity in Mexico like the ones we see in Canada, France and other nations.

The other issue is the Trump administration’s onslaught to strengthen the interests of the junk food and drink industries that have invaded our country from the north to make us into the greatest consumers of their products, and bring us to the point of an epidemic with respect to obesity and diabetes. The new North American Free Trade Agreement has an appendix that prohibits the signatory nations from requiring warning labels that allow consumers to know if the products contain high quantities of sugar, fats or salt, the three ingredients that given such high levels of consumption have led us to being first place among other countries for overweight and obese children and women.

In this case, the idea has not been imposed on us, but Mexico has agreed for year to serve the junk food industry. The Department of the Economy has told the World Trade Organization that is opposes warning labels established in Ecuador and the program that is discussed in Peru together with the great food and drink corporations. At the same time, Mexican officials have criticized warning labels, arguing that they are a bar to commerce. The World Health Organization congratulated those countries for the warning labels as a model policy to be followed. The Department of the Economy has not just shared the position of the junk food industry in its position against policies that affect other countries, it has been documented that it also has done so to protect the tobacco industry against regulations recommended by the WHO in other countries.

In the midst of the declared epidemiological emergencies concerning obesity and diabetes and the disproportionate increase in obesity among Mexican children, our officials agree with a prohibition on warning labels that leaves consumers blind when faced with the products that are advertised for their wonderful qualities and for promoting happiness and youth while making children big and strong, yet hiding the fact that these products lead to diabetes. But we will see much more about NAFTA, about this silent invasion. There is talk about violations of digital rights, of senseless protection of intellectual property on the web, of protections that are not guaranteed internationally for the pharmaceutical industry, and to tell the truth, who knows what else will come from the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, the citizenry is kept ignorant about its destiny as it is negotiated behind closed doors, negotiations in which, it appears, the Mexican government has lost all dignity before Trump, a head of state who is nothing more than a professional violator of all kinds of rights, a person who denies scientific evidence. If in his own country, he seeks to end social security***, deny climate change, dismantle environmental protection policy, etc., what can we expect from a commercial treaty negotiated bilaterally with him?

*Editor’s note: The author is referring to the three NAFTA signatory countries: Canada, Mexico and the United States.

** Editor’s note: The agreement referred to by the author was negotiated by a Mexican government that will be replaced by a new one, from a different political party, in December 2018.

***Editor’s note: It is not clear whether by the term “social security” the author was referring to the United States Social Security program.