EXPLAINING NAFTA

1	Title
2	What to expect:   ►  Explaining N.A.F.T.A.   ►  Issues with North American Dominance   ►  Issues with Foreign Dominance   ►  Our Hope   ►  Present Status   ►  What Now?  What can we Do?
3	Explaining NAFTA   Theoretically Free Trade works when all parties involved are economically sound and equal. If one party can trade something they have more than enough of for something they lack  with lower to no tariffs then both sides benefit getting more variety for less money.  Let’s say for example we trade U.S. Florida Navel Oranges and Napa Valley Grapes for Mexican Mangos and Plantain    N.A.F.T.A. stands for the North America Free Trade Agreement – A contract that’s been in constant negotiation since the early 1990s.  This creates a trading relationship between Canada, and U.S., with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.
4	More expensive and efficient United States farming equipment means less man power and more production than Latin American farms.    also problematic are  poor quality country roads in developing countries making transport between farm and the outside world difficult as well as expensive sea and air transport between countries   Note: Photographer says about picture: “I smile when I see the colors of the Mexican flag. People decorate their work places or intentionally wear clothing in these colors.”
5	Consequently the Mexican produce is more expensive than American so Mexican farmers can’t sell to a Mexican public, much less export it – More money is paid out with less income and so to compete on a global market, Mexican farms need to cut expenses which means less wages and benefits for Mexican farm workers.
6	Fair Free Trade is just another word for unfair competition   Mexican produce is more expensive than American so Mexican farmers can’t even sell to a Mexican public, much less export it – More money is paid out with less income and worse –   To compete on a global market, Mexican farms need to cut expenses which means less wages and benefits for Mexican farm workers
7	United States Domination
8	Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993 – So said the Wall Street Journal in March of 2008.  Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.
9	Gateway cities for commerce with Latin America?”
10	Texas Fair Trade Coalition held a conference in September of this year and the focus in one of their presentations was:   Wages and labor standards have been pushed down around the world   In the United States, millions of jobs have been lost, and wages have gone down   Union strength has been undermined   State laws designed to support workers are threatened
11	International Domination
12	GRAIN is an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) which promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people's control over genetic resources and local knowledge.  Through their publication, we wonder [NEXT SLIDE]
13	If North America the only bully on the block? Latin America has Free Trade Agreements with the European Union Aren’t they yet another agenda for domination?      GRAIN is an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) which promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people's control over genetic resources and local knowledge.
14	In June of 2008 they reported that The European Union is promoting “association agreements” or “cooperation agreements” with Latin American countries. These agreements appear weaker and more flexible than the equivalent agreements that the USA is presently negotiating with Latin American countries, but realistically it is insisting that the countries agree to periodically expand what has been agreed and to undertake an undefined number of legal, administrative, economic, technical and social reforms, the objective of which is to grant European countries ever more favorable conditions in all aspects of national life.   Reminiscent of traditional colonialism, transnational corporations will take control of communications, water, the banking system, oil, biodiversity, all kinds of raw materials and fishing, as well as being able to use Latin American countries as bases for exports. Eventually European companies will take the place of state companies and be responsible for establishing norms, certification and patents. Tariff barriers, taxes, physical sanitary standards, quality controls and any other regulation seen as a barrier to the expansion of European companies and their trade will be swept away.  If these agreements are negotiated in secret and their implementation becomes the responsibility of the executive branch of government, civil society and the parliaments of the countries involved will not be allowed to protest or to investigate properly what is going on.
15	Also important they tell us in another report that “food insecure” governments that rely on imports to feed their people are snatching up vast areas of farmland abroad for their own offshore food production.   food corporations and private investors, hungry for profits in the midst of the deepening financial crisis, see investment in foreign farmlands as an important new source of revenue. As a result, fertile agricultural lands are becoming increasingly privatised and concentrated. If left unchecked, this global landgrab could spell the end of small scale farming, and rural livelihoods, in numerous places around the world.
16	Almost as a warning, Liberation Theologist, Gustov Gutierrez:   The perception of the fact of dependence and its consequences has made possible a new awareness of the Latin American reality.  It is now seen clearly that in addition to economic factors, it is also necessary to take into consideration political factors.  Development theory must now take into account the situation of dependence and the possibility of becoming free from it.  Only in this context can the theory make any sense and have any possibility of being implemented.   Tourist Video   What did we just see?
17 – 18	Here are some excerpts from Farmers Pathologies of Power:   Chiapas is the only Mexican state in which more than 50% of the people identify themselves as indigenous.  Many of the people—the great majority in the eastern reaches of the state—are of Mayan descent…Their first languages are other than Spanish…Many of them, especially the women, don’t speak Mexico’s official language.   In Chiapas, “There are 2 clinics for every 1000 people.”  The happy natives you saw on the Travel video are less likely to have access to clean water, electricity, and education than are Mexicans in general.”   But, “It is not true that Chiapas is poor, Chiapas is rich in natural resources.  It is the people of Chiapas that is poor.”    They didn’t see the Indian as anything other than an anthropological object, a curiosity for tourists, part of a “Jurassic park” which luckily would disappear with  NAFTA t hat includes them only as disposable waste, because the death of these in the mountains doesn’t matter much.   We are thought of as more lowly than oxen, but at least they make sure that their livestock have basic medical care from a veterinarian.  They take better care of their pets.”  The people o the autonomous zones were tired of being Galeano’s “nobodies” – people with arms for working but no faces, people with ”folklore” rather than culture.  They were tired of playing the role of Mexico’s chattel.   The observation that Chiapas is rich; its people, poor—has become something of a slogan among the Zapatistas and their supporters.  In a declaration made at the outset of the revolt, the Zapatistas observed that the nation’s poor bore a grotesque burden of treatable pathologies, many of them infectious diseases.  They further argued that the government ignored these pathologies because such illnesses had ceased to afflict Mexicans who did not live in poverty—the sort of Mexicans for whom policy was designed and whose existence the media recognized.
19	If universal conscience abides so heavily in POWER, GREED AND SELF INTEREST        then where is our Hope?
10	In June of 2008, the Washington times wrote an article about Obama’s take on NAFTA.  They said:   During the Democratic primaries and caucuses, when Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton were competing in the Rust Belt states, Mr. Obama began attacking NAFTA. He stated that he would re-negotiate the treaty and even abrogate it if his demands were not met. He declared in Cleveland: "I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." Further   "I've always been a proponent of free trade and I've always been a believer that we have to have strong environmental provisions and strong labor provisions in our trade agreements."
21	Considering that from the beginning, our Constitution relegated all trade matters to the Legislative Branch it seems particularly suspicious that the for the last 20 years not only have our presidents not tried to inform our congressmen and senators about how important this legislation was, but they did whatever they could to take that decision making power for themselves.    On June 26, 2008, the Washington Times writes:   During the Democratic primaries and caucuses, when Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton were competing in the Rust Belt states, Mr. Obama began attacking NAFTA. He stated that he would re-negotiate the treaty and even abrogate it if his demands were not met. He declared in Cleveland: "I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." But then they report that later he said, "I've always been a proponent of free trade and I've always been a believer that we have to have strong environmental provisions and strong labor provisions in our trade agreements."     Makes you wonder which side he’s on.
22	But then we could explore possibilities locally In our own back yards
23	Small farms that can’t stay in business are sold to bigger conglomerates whether in Chiapas or in the States.  We do have a choice.
24	CHART THAT SHOWS THE BIG COMPANY BUYING SMALLER ORGANIC FOOD GROWERS TO LESSEN COMPETITION FOR PROFITS
25	Equal Exchange Fairly Trades Coffee, Tea, Chocolate and Snacks Internationally   ►  What is the Big Change that Equal Exchange believes is occurring when they talk about small farmers?   ►  Why does Equal Exchange buy their products only from small farmer co-operatives?   ►  Why do they feel so strongly about supporting the farmers’ efforts to promote change in our lives, co-operatives and communities?
26	Ecological Farmers of the Sierra Madres of Chiapas CESMACH  is a group of farmers from Jaltenango, Chiapas who took an interest in growing organic coffee in the buffer zone of El Triunfo, a U.N.- designated biosphere, rich in flora and fauna, containing many endangered and protected species. Within the nucleus of the biosphere, agricultural activities are not permitted. Organic farming is allowed in the buffer zone, which separates the biosphere from the surrounding region, as long as it is done in accordance with a strict set of standards designed to protect the fragile environment of the rain and cloud forest. For thousands of farmers living in this area, coffee is the principal agricultural activity and their only source of income.          They overcame many obstacles with local farmers to form a co-operative.  Starting around 2001, they started a business relationship with Starbucks where for a couple of years Starbucks purchased their coffee.  Eventually they had to terminate their contract when the Starbucks began to overstep its bounds and impose practices the co-operative felt undermined their development efforts in the zone.  Equal Exchange was first introduced to CESMACH in the fall of 2004, with a letter addressed to coffee buyers addressed under “urgent action”, in which they denounced Starbucks for arranging with them an exclusive agreement to sell all their coffee. CESMACH actually referred to them as an “imperialist company” for trying to impose their business practices on the small-scale coffee farming co-operative. According to their letter, CESMACH was publicly denouncing the company, breaking its contract with them, and inviting Fair Trade buyers to purchase the co-operative’s organic coffee.   Equal Exchange was looking for an additional source for high-quality, organic Fair Trade coffee from Chiapas and so, in January 2005, they went to the Sierra Madre mountains of southwestern Chiapas where CESMACH has its office, to meet the farmers and learn more about their organization and their coffee snf the rest is history.
27	One option I found was  to create Green Partnerships with Equal Exchange   ►  While 25 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming are estimated to come from the agriculture sector, the sustainable farming practices of many small-scale farmers actually help to cool the planet and protect our natural resources. Organic farming, reforestation, soil and watershed protection, and the use of stoves that convert organic waste into methane gas are just some of the ways in which small-scale farmers are keeping our food, our bodies, and our eco-systems healthy.   ►  By contacting Equal Exchange at http://eecampaign.wordpress.com/, you too can find additional ways to take action to ”green” our own communities, religious institutions, schools, cafes, and other work places. Through the choices we make in purchases, building materials, energy sources, packaging, and transportation we can make tremendous strides in creating a greener planet and a healthier and more just food system.
28	Cezar Chevaz Tish Hinojosa
	1.    Sharp, Register, Rimes. (2004). Economics of Social Issues. (271) New York:McGraw-Hill 2.    Wall Street Journal - Texas v. Ohio March 3, 2008; Page A16 3.    Texas Fair Trade Coalition http://www.texasfairtrade.org 4.    Grain *http://www.grain.org/front 5.    Gutierrez G. (2007) Liberation Theology. (54) New York:Orbis Books 6.    Chiapas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSOCKtJOsMo 7.    Farmer, P. (2005). Pathologies of Power. (99-100) 8.    Washington Times EDITORIAL: Obama fumbles NAFTA - Thursday, June 26, 2008 9.    http://www.iadb.org/news/detail.cfm?id=4759 10. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/12/national/w135718D02.DTL&feed=rss.news 11. Small Farmers. Big Change -  http://eecampaign.wordpress.com/ 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Chavez 13. Music – Dreaming from the Labyrinth by Tish Hinojosa