Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, November 11, 1993 TAG: 9311120269
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A15 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Ray L. Garland
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
People seem to be for or against on a purely instinctive, visceral basis. Mainly, it has been a debate between big business and big labor, with the general public wondering what all the fuss is about.
To make a long story short, NAFTA is a free-trade compact (with much fine print) uniting 375 million consumers in Canada, Mexico and the United States. If successfully implemented, other nations, such as Chile and Argentina, will contemplate membership. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger put it, "About once in a generation this country has an opportunity in foreign policy to do ... something that establishes the structure for decades to come."
Previous American experiments in promoting better relations with the numerous states of South and Central America, such as Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy and Kennedy's Alliance for Progress, were largely rhetorical flourishes that produced little tangible benefit. NAFTA is the pragmatic opening wedge that could lead Mexico and others from a state-based economic system that has produced poverty and tyranny to a market-based system that might produce prosperity and freedom.
It's a tough sell, even here, but political freedom is bound up with economic freedom. There's no reason why Mexico and Brazil should be poor. Both are rich in human and material resources. They are poor and beset periodically by grave political crises because they have preferred political utopianism to the proven pragmatism of free markets.
That's fine for them, you say, but what's in it for us? Well, for one thing, there are 450 million potential customers in Central and South America, and most of them are now in no position to buy our goods and services. There's also the question of our porous borders. So long as Mexico and many of her sister states offer scant prospects at home, there will be an almost irresistible tide of immigrants coming here.
Still, none of that would matter if the price of greater prosperity for Mexico was the impoverishment of the United States. But the history of free trade, from its inception in 19th century Britain, is one of an expanding pie that feeds all comers. That is, the wealth of nations is not finite, but capable of almost infinite expansion by free men operating in free markets. Given the problems of Mexico in recent years, that seems a tall order. But under President Carlos Salinas de Gortari it appears to have turned a corner.
If NAFTA is defeated, Mexico will not return to the semi-fascist mercantilism that made it poor. It will implement much of NAFTA on its own and aggressively pursue both investments and exports. If low wages are such an incentive to locate plants in Mexico, then the relatively low tariffs now applied to Mexican goods entering this country won't be the effective barrier that American unions want. The chief difference will be that Mexico and the United States will not be going forward as partners in free trade that could be a liberating force throughout the hemisphere.
As 5th District Democrat L.F. Payne said in endorsing the agreement, "If we reject NAFTA, Mexico will look elsewhere. ... If that happens, every American will be a loser." Considering the character of his Southside district, Payne's forthright support represented an act of some political courage.
Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat representing Southwest Virginia, came down on the other side, joining fellow Democratic liberals Leslie Byrne and Robert Scott in opposition. The state's other liberal Democrat, James Moran of the Northern Virginia 8th, was an early NAFTA backer. Among Democrats, that leaves Owen Pickett and Norman Sisisky in the undecided column.
Clinton is said to have promised Republicans who vote for NAFTA that he won't campaign against them, which might seem now to be the wrong inducement. But the GOP's Robert Goodlatte and Tom Bliley have come out in favor of the agreement. Herb Bateman is said to be leaning in favor, while Frank Wolf plays his cards close to the vest. But when the votes are counted, a majority in NAFTA's favor is likely to be found in Virginia's 11-member delegation.
If it escapes the House, which is by no means a sure thing, relatively smooth sailing is predicted in the Senate, where only a third of the membership will be on the ballot next year.
The AFL-CIO and Ross Perot are the main forces opposing NAFTA. The first is somewhat like the old Institutional Revolutionary Party that has ruled Mexico since 1929, specializing in liberal rhetoric and illiberal policies. Perot, who spoke warmly of the agreement before the presidential bug bit in earnest, is looking for anything populist to keep his kite flying. We might take note of the millions that he (and the U.S. government) have poured into developing a Perot-operated, free-trade zone in Texas designed to serve the Mexican market.
Let's recall that free trade among the states of the old American confederation was also a somewhat radical idea when the U.S. Constitution was offered and nearly rejected in 1787-88. By creating a huge market for the free exchange of goods under the rule of law, we guaranteed our future prosperity.
America is too quick to sell its achievements short. Of the world's 100 largest public companies, 48 are American. None, it might be added, is Mexican or Canadian.
\ Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
by CNB