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:

Publisher's Note December 10, 2018, 3:23 pm

A New Day?

“The Democratic Party is best understood as an assemblage of baronies, the three most important of which—California, New York, and Illinois—dole out the most patronage and political favors in return for filling the party’s coffers and guaranteeing the reelection of its most cherished adherents.”

Publisher's Note November 3, 2018, 12:02 am

All Bets Are Off

“I recommend neither the assertions of journalists and pollsters nor big headlines about terror attacks, murders, or caravans of desperate people as a basis for predicting the outcome of the midterm elections.”

Publisher's Note October 9, 2018, 11:53 am

Trading on Resentment

“The ‘free trade’ policies championed by US leaders from Reagan to Obama, most definitely including the Clintons, have produced many victims.”

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

January 2019

Resistances

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Long Shot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Machine Politics

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Polar Light

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump Is a Good President

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Machine Politics·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip,” Ronald Reagan said in 1989. He was speaking to a thousand British notables in London’s historic Guildhall, several months before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Reagan proclaimed that the world was on the precipice of “a new era in human history,” one that would bring “peace and freedom for all.” Communism was crumbling, just as fascism had before it. Liberal democracies would soon encircle the globe, thanks to the innovations of Silicon Valley. “I believe,” he said, “that more than armies, more than diplomacy, more than the best intentions of democratic nations, the communications revolution will be the greatest force for the advancement of human freedom the world has ever seen.”

At the time, most everyone thought Reagan was right. The twentieth century had been dominated by media that delivered the same material to millions of people at the same time—radio and newspapers, movies and television. These were the kinds of one-to-many, top-down mass media that Orwell’s Big Brother had used to stay in power. Now, however, Americans were catching sight of the internet. They believed that it would do what earlier media could not: it would allow people to speak for themselves, directly to one another, around the world. “True personalization is now upon us,” wrote MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte in his 1995 bestseller Being Digital. Corporations, industries, and even whole nations would soon be transformed as centralized authorities were demolished. Hierarchies would dissolve and peer-to-peer collaborations would take their place. “Like a force of nature,” wrote Negroponte, “the digital age cannot be denied or stopped.”

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Long Shot·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ihave had many names, but as a sniper I went by Azad, which means “free” or “freedom” in Kurdish. I had been fighting for sixteen months in Kurdish territory in northern Syria when in April 2015 I was asked to leave my position on the eastern front, close to the Turkish border, and join an advance on our southwestern one. Eight months earlier, we had been down to our last few hundred yards, and, outnumbered five to one, had made a last stand in Kobanî. In January, after more than four months of fighting street-to-street and room-by-room, we recaptured the town and reversed what was, until then, an unstoppable jihadi tide. In the battles since, we had pushed ­ISIS far enough in every direction that crossing our territory was no longer a short dash through the streets but a five-hour drive across open country. As we set out to the north, I could make out the snowy peaks in southern Turkey where they say Noah once beached his ark. Below them, rolling toward us, were the wide, grassy valleys and pine forests of Mesopotamia, the land between the Euphrates and the Tigris where our people have lived for twelve thousand years.

The story of my people is filled with bitter ironies. The Kurds are one of the world’s oldest peoples and, as pioneers of agriculture, were once among its most advanced. Though the rest of the world now largely overlooks that it was Kurds who were among the first to create a civilization, the evidence is there. In 1995, German archaeologists began excavating a temple at Göbekli Tepe in northern Kurdistan. They found a structure flanked by stone pillars carved with bulls, foxes, and cranes, which they dated to around 10,000 bce. At the end of the last Ice Age, and seven thousand years before the erection of Stonehenge or the pyramids at Giza, my ancestors were living together as shamans, artists, farmers, and engineers.

Fighters of the YJA-STAR, the women’s force in the PKK, Sinjar, Iraq, November 2015 (detail)
Article
Polar Light·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To get oriented here is difficult. The light is flat because the sky is overcast. The sun’s weak rays create only a few anemic shadows by which to judge scale and distance. Far-off objects like mountain peaks have crisp edges because the atmosphere itself is as transparent as first-water diamonds, but the mountains are not nearly as close as they seem. It’s about negative-twelve degrees Fahrenheit, but the wind is relatively calm, moving over the snow distractedly, like an animal scampering.

[caption id="attachment_271890" align="aligncenter" width="690"]True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images. True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images.[/caption]

Four of the six people living here are in their tents now, next to their cookstoves, two by two, warming up and preparing their suppers. I’m the fifth of the group, almost motionless at the moment, a hundred yards south of the tent cluster, kneeling on a patch of bluish ice in the midst of a great expanse of white. I’m trying to discern a small object entombed there a few inches below the surface. Against the porcelain whites of this gently sloping landscape, I must appear starkly apparent in my cobalt blue parka and wind pants. I shift slowly right and left, lean slightly forward, then settle back, trying to get the fluxless sunlight to reveal more of the shape and texture of the object.

A multiple-exposure photograph (detail) taken every hour from 1:30 pm on December 8, 1965, to 10:10 am on December 9, 1965, showing the sun in its orbit above the South Pole, Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station © Georg Gerster/Panos Pictures
Article
Donald Trump Is a Good President·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In all sincerity, I like Americans a lot; I’ve met many lovely people in the United States, and I empathize with the shame many Americans (and not only “New York intellectuals”) feel at having such an appalling clown for a leader.

However, I have to ask—and I know what I’m requesting isn’t easy for you—that you consider things for a moment from a non-American point of view. I don’t mean “from a French point of view,” which would be asking too much; let’s say, “from the point of view of the rest of the world.”On the numerous occasions when I’ve been questioned about Donald Trump’s election, I’ve replied that I don’t give a shit. France isn’t Wyoming or Arkansas. France is an independent country, more or less, and will become totally independent once again when the European Union is dissolved (the sooner, the better).

Illustration (detail) by Ricardo Martínez
Article
Resistances·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The prepositions you’re most likely to encounter after the title of a poem are “for” or “to” and sometimes “after”—“for my daughter”; “to Bobby”; “after Pound”; etc. They signify dedication, address, homage, imitation. In the recent poems of Fred Moten, we encounter “with,” a preposition that denotes accompaniment. The little difference makes a big difference, emphasizing collaboration over the economy of the gift, suggesting that the poet and his company are fellow travelers, in the same time zone, alongside each other in the present tense of composition. (Given Moten’s acclaimed critical work on jazz, the “with” is immediately evocative of musical performance, e.g., “Miles Davis with Sonny Rollins.”) Not all “withs” are the same—there is a different intimacy in the poem “fifty little springs,” which is “with aviva,” Moten’s wife’s Hebrew name (which means springtime), than there is in “resistances,” which is “with” a critic and an artist, interlocutors of Moten’s. (The poem “13. southern pear trees” has no preposition after the title, but is excerpted from another responding to the work of Zoe Leonard, and so is still a work of fellowship.) The scale of that “with” can be small (“with aviva, as if we were all alone”) or vast (“with everybody we don’t know”), but either way the poem becomes an instance of alongsidedness instead of belatedness; the poems request, with that subtle prepositional shift, that we think of ourselves as participants in the production of meaning and not mere recipients of someone else’s eloquence.

“Untitled,” 1989, by Zoe Leonard © Zoe Leonard (detail)

Estimated number of times in the Fall of 1990 that George Bush told a joke about his dog asking for a wine list with her Alpo:

10

French researchers reported that 52 percent of young women exposed to Francis Cabrel’s ballad “Je l’aime à mourir” gave their phone numbers to an average-looking young man who hit on them, whereas only 28 percent of those exposed to Vincent Delerm’s “L’heure du thé” did so.

Migrant children were teargassed; carbon dioxide levels have reached three to five million year high; missionary killed by remote tribe

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

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today