The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came on to the scene in 1993 and was cheered by leaders in Washington, Ottawa and Mexico City who claimed that it held great benefits for consumers and producers alike, in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The new agreement cut import and export fees between the three countries and was aimed at easing the movement of goods across North America. Agricultural producers from the North were promised increased access to export markets, consumers were promised lower prices, and Mexico was mostly promised jobs as U.S. companies promised to set up shop south of the border now that they could send goods North without paying export tariffs. Small farmers from the north and Mexican campesinos saw early what others reported long after NAFTA had taken hold.

NAFTA was designed to benefit corporations who were in search of cheap labor, fewer environmental regulations and favored increased competition between American, Mexican and Canadian farmers to push down food prices. NAFTA has lowered production costs for corporations in almost every industry and lead to booming profits for CEO's, but it has offered little to consumers, producers or rural communities. Since 1993 food prices for consumers have steadily increased while real food prices for retailers continue to decrease.

Since 1994 an estimated 33,000 small farms have been lost in the U.S. At the same time changes in farm policy in the U.S. that promote overproduction have resulted in mass exports of corn and other products to Mexico and put Mexican farmers out of business. These producers are now forced to go in search of jobs and often find themselves working for low wages and in unbearable conditions in factories owned by U.S. companies that are operating in Mexico. The other option is to risk crossing the border to find work illegally in U.S. factories or on farms. For every 30 tons of corn the U.S. exports to Mexico, one worker is forced to cross the US border to find work. In one year the U.S. will export approximately 60 million tons of corn to Mexico and Mexico will export nearly 200,000 migrant workers to the U.S.

Now, after nearly 8 years of "success" the Bush administration is pushing to expand the "benefits" of NAFTA across the entire Western Hemisphere with the Free Trade Agreement of the America's (FTAA). The FTAA would expand the trade rules of NAFTA down to Chili, the most southern tip of South America, and to the Caribbean. Many producers, consumers and governments are skeptical of this "NAFTA on steroids." Corporations, however, are pushing hard as they set their eyes on the hemisphere's most threatened and treasured natural resources. Education and political campaigns opposing FTAA are growing across the North, Central and South America to alert people to the true "benefits" of NAFTA style agreements that allow companies to cross borders in search of the lowest cost of production, but restrict the movement of people to find the best quality of life.

Rural Coalition worked hard during the NAFTA debate to connect our members in Mexico and the U.S. who were opposing the agreement. From that work the SuperMarket Project was created as an alternative "People to People NAFTA" that encouraged cooperation among producers in the two countries and ensured benefits directly to the people who producer and consume food. Now RC is beginning a new phase of trade work, focusing on FTAA and highlighting the relationship between trade and forced immigration.

As agreements like NAFTA spread across the Hemisphere, and the world, the living and working conditions of adults and children are getting worse, and the pressure to immigrate to the U.S. in hopes of a better way of life and more promising future is increasing. At the same time U.S. policy toward immigrants is getting more and more hostile and being justified as part of the post September 11 U.S. "war on terrorism." The men and woman who work in the fields, hotels, restaurants, factories and other low wage industries in the U.S., and who are praised by President Bush as such a vital part of our economy, are not terrorists - they are the farmers, business owners and mothers from the countries that are suffering under corporate driven U.S. policies, and have been evicted from their lives as a result of these agreements.

THE JUICY TRUTH

In an effort to push along the negotiations over FTAA and exert pressure on countries like Brazil, Argentina and Chili who are skeptical of FTAA and opening their boarders to U.S. companies and endless agricultural imports, the Administration has been pushing a number of regional and country free trade agreements. With the threat of other Central and South American countries gaining unlimited access to the U.S.'s consumer market, Bush hopes to push those countries who have been dragging their feet on FTAA into negotiations.

The administration is eager to move these agreements forward and is asking Congress to grant the President Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) - aka FAST TRACK - to do so. Fast Track would allow the President to negotiate binding trade agreements, that could not be amended by Congress, but only voted up or down. Bush has claimed that other countries are requesting this so that they can negotiate agreements without the fear of they would have to being changed by action of the U.S. Congress.

Given the record of NAFTA, it seems quite clear that any trade agreement made in the future must be open to public debate, review and amendments. The only way to guarantee that U.S. trade policy benefits the people whose lives they will impact is for Congress and the public to be involved in the process of developing them. This oversight is impossible under under Fast Track.

After a decade of voting it down, the House of Representatives passed Fast Track by a single vote in December. The Senate has been supportive of the legislation in the past and is expected to pass Fast Track soon. There is little hope of stopping Fast Track in the Senate, but if the Senate bill is different enough from the House bill it will have to be negotiated with the House bill and voted on again on the House floor - where there is a chance of getting the bill voted down. Though somewhat complicated, this strategy to defeat fast track is the best option to assure Congress maintains its constitutional role in negotiating trade agreements, instead of ceding this power to the President and the Administration.

There are two amendments being offered in the Senate that will alter Fast Track and the authority of NAFTA, and make the bill significantly different than the House version already passed. An amendment offered by Senators Dayton (D-MN) and Craig (D-ID) would allow the Senate to vote on any term of an agreement that would alter U.S. anti-dumping law, regardless of Fast Track restrictions. An amendment offered by Senator Kerry (D-MA) would remove NAFTA provisions that allow corporations to sue governments for enacting local and state laws that are perceived to restrict free trade by protecting people and the environment.

THE MAY SQUEEZE

Put People First - Support and Open Trade Negotiations

We are asking the Senate to:

We are asking the House to:

What you can do:

Be Part of Our Campaign for Food n’ Justice, visit RuralCo.org.
Questions on food and farm policy?
Contact Heather Fenney at (202) 628-7160.
To join or support our work:
Rural Coalition/Coalición Rural
1012 14th Street, NW Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 628-7160
Visit RuralCo.org or SuperMarketCoop.com.

A Project of The Rural Coalition
1012 14th Street NW Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone (202) 628-7160 Fax (202) 628-7165
Toll Free 1-866-RURAL-80