Publisher's Note — November 10, 2017, 5:29 pm

Industrial Tourism

NAFTA is an investment contract that protects American and Canadian goods and interests against Mexican expropriation, regulation, and pestering by local authorities.

A version of this column originally ran in Le Devoir on November 6, 2017. Translated from the French by John Cullen.

The egotism of Bill Clinton, as full of himself and as proud as ever of his great work of destruction, the North American Free Trade Agreement, has always left me speechless with wonder. But I had thought that, after the election of Donald Trump, whose victory was due in large part to a wave of anger at the relocation of factory jobs to Mexico, Clinton might demonstrate, if not shame and regret, at least a little modesty.

Not a chance. Before a packed auditorium at the Palais des Congrès in Montreal last month, alongside the equally unrepentant Jean Chrétien, Canada’s prime minister when NAFTA was signed, Clinton declared that the 1994 agreement was “the right thing to do. It left us all stronger, with more diversified economies…. I just assumed anybody that voted for a trade bill knew that there would be winners and losers and would be only too happy to help the losers and I was wrong about that. But the net effect of NAFTA was positive.”

The audacity of Clinton’s false innocence, his good-natured image, his refusal to acknowledge the reality on both sides of the Rio Grande, was breathtaking. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA caused the loss of nearly 700,000 American jobs, many of them in the Rust Belt, the former industrial heartland that includes portions of the three swing states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—that in 2016 delivered the White House to Donald Trump. In that part of the country, many working-class white folks who in 2008 and 2012 had voted for Barack Obama out of hope voted for Trump in 2016 out of despair. Like his wife, Bill Clinton couldn’t care less about those people. Emboldened by having strengthened his ties to the large corporations that profited from NAFTA-guaranteed access to cheap Mexican labor, he further enriched his business-friendly portfolio in 2000 with a congressional resolution to establish permanent normal trade relations with China, a policy that devastated what was left of the well-paid American working class. Between corrupt Mexico and communist China, both of them turned into work colonies for American-style capitalism, you had—if you were the CEO of an American corporation or one of their major stockholders—reason to rejoice.

Clinton and his confreres also maintain that Mexican workers have benefited from NAFTA with salary increases, that growing “exports” have stabilized the Mexican economy, and that there has been a decline in illegal immigration into the United States. In fact, wages in Mexico remain frozen, both in the maquiladora belt along the US border (where the pay is still a dollar an hour, health and welfare benefits not included) and in the central part of the country. Despite declarations to the contrary, NAFTA has discouraged the diversification of the Mexican economy, given that there’s practically no added value in the factory assembly of parts manufactured mostly abroad and rarely in Mexico. What we have here is industrial tourism, and calling the resulting products exports is misleading.

As for the poor Mexicans supposedly delighted to be working in their own country, it’s true that the number of arrests made by the US Border Patrol is down considerably from 2006. The number of deportations, however, has grown enormously (from 1,416,704 during George W. Bush’s two terms to 1,957,784 during the eight years of the Obama Administration). Could this be because naked intimidation has discouraged desperately poor people from trying their luck in El Norte?

None of these inconvenient truths prevents the “free trade” promoters from praising NAFTA as though it were genuinely concerned with free trade. First and foremost, NAFTA is an investment contract that protects American and Canadian goods and interests against Mexican expropriation, regulation, and pestering by local authorities. Tariffs between the United States and Mexico were already quite low at the time NAFTA was negotiated, but back then American businessmen feared being shaken down by the Mexican political and business elites. The only significant free trade element in the agreement was the reduction to zero of the Mexican tariff on American corn, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers being driven from their land by cheap Nebraska corn.

Alas, the thuggish Trump stupidly attacks NAFTA for the wrong reasons, accusing the Mexicans of thievery when actually they’ve been the victims of theft. At this point in time, the real thieves, the gringo owners and investors, are panicking—as well they might—in the face of the American president’s bellicose rhetoric. If Trump nullifies NAFTA, the guarantees of compensation to US businesses set out in Chapter 11 of the agreement will disappear. If, as seems more and more likely, Andrés Manuel López Obrador is elected president of Mexico next year, that tribune of the nationalist left might shake up the current situation and follow the example of Lázaro Cárdenas, who nationalized the foreign petroleum companies in 1938. “Mexico is not a colony” of America, thunders López Obrador. For now, he appears to be wrong. Rather like the people who didn’t believe in the possibility of a Trump presidency.

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

From the January 2018 issue

The Human Factor

How I learned the real meaning of dissent

Publisher's Note December 13, 2017, 7:25 pm

McCain’s War

“Although McCain participated in a morally unpardonable war in which the United Sates killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, one can’t help sympathizing with him in his reduced state.”

Publisher's Note October 5, 2017, 11:31 am

A Sad Heritage

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Minimum number of shooting incidents in the United States in the past year in which the shooter was a dog:

2

40,800,000,000 pounds of total adult human biomass is due to excessive fatness.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today