 |
|
|
 Editorials | Opinions | June 2005 
The French "No" Consoles Those Burnt by NAFTA
 Brigitte Morissette - Le Devoir
| | British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, addressing the House of Commons in London, made moves to shelve plans for a referendum on the European Union constituton following the French and Dutch rejection of the treaty. (Photo: AP) |
The commentaries heard in favor of a "yes" to the European Constitution and the evils heralded by an eventual "no" reminded us of a familiar refrain in Mexico: an imperfect constitution is better than none at all; those sections considered dangerous or poorly negotiated can always be corrected later.
Even if Europe already has a common market far more integrated than NAFTA - with assistance to the poorest partners - these arguments remind us of those offered by NAFTA's unconditional supporters and negotiators: if we reopen the free-trade agreement, the Americans will take advantage of the fact to impose their own modifications which will surely lead us to new exorbitant demands! The French with their customary disdain retorted boldly to their own Cassandras: we don't give a damn about your blackmail and your prognostications of catastrophe!
If there are people anywhere who should rejoice in the French "no," it's certainly us North Americans - Canadians and Mexicans. A "yes" for an obscure constitution no more democratic than our parliaments' agreement to NAFTA under pressure from financial and commercial lobbies would have been a bad example for Canada and Mexico. The supporters of an agreement set in concrete such as NAFTA would have found a good justification for reasserting ad nauseam - as has Toronto President of the Canadian Council of Company Heads Thomas D'Aquino: NAFTA is only a commercial agreement. Social considerations have no place there.
No Place for the Opposition
In this eleventh year since the operation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, colloquia and commentary of every kind have increased in universities, conferences, parliaments, the media, in Monterrey - Mexico's economic capital - as in Mexico City, its political capital. And practically everywhere, the satisfied tone closed to any and all opposition that has been practiced in the circles of power since the initial NAFTA negotiations has been heard all over again. Even in the course of colloquia that one could have hoped would be more critical - coming from post-graduate institutions such as the Colegio de Mexico.
Now this same illustrious institution, reputed for its political studies, allowed the debate to be dominated by business interests, starting with Mr. D'Aquino. The latter even had the honor of the noon meal speech and, in spite of the numbers he had available on job losses, growth of poverty in Mexico, and the disappearance of whole sectors such as corn, Mr. D'Aquino attempted to convince his auditors that the social conditions of the peoples living under NAFTA have no place in a commercial agreement! In 12 years, Mr. D'Aquino's speech has not changed a bit.
Felicitous Influence
Why does the European Constitution matter to us? Because strengthening of Fortress Europe attacks the North American block? And because by delaying this strengthening we give that much respite to our own commercial competitive power? Even economists deemed that the proposed Constitution was extremely elaborate, confused, and created more problems than opportunities.
Let's consider instead the felicitous influence this "no" will have on our countries, even if only by reducing the pressure that acceleration in the process of European integration would have exerted on North America. A process that had been prepared for a long time, but was precipitated - as was NAFTA - by officials little inclined to give themselves over to critical analysis, skeptical of all statistics that differed from their own - even unions' - and pushed by who knows what urgencies to demolish the sovereignty of Nation-states!
The French "no" will not facilitate the task of North American groups trying to revise certain aspects of NAFTA, such as the rules concerning agriculture and Chapter 11, which gives foreign investors outrageous advantages. Nor will it accelerate the integration of social considerations into a new round of the free trade agreement! But the French - and even some of their German allies who are skeptical about a Constitution the perusal of which seems to be reserved for experts - have vigorously rejected a proposal that has attracted the same criticisms in certain circles as the negotiation of NAFTA. If the great projects of integration are allowed to be dominated by commercial and competitive ambitions, it would be better to go back and redo our homework.
In a country like Mexico, many social groups can rejoice as in France over a "no" that does not herald the end of the story, but perhaps rather the beginning of new reflections from which the fate of people condemned to historic dislocations will no longer be disregarded.
At the time when the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and the European Union was being negotiated five years ago, a little article imposing democracy aroused many commentaries. Did that contribute to Mexico's passage to the democracy from which all of North America now benefits? It's possible that this so-called democratic clause the European Union imposed resembles a pious vow more than a weapon of social or political justice; it seems nonetheless more and more difficult to ignore the fate of peoples subjected to a free-trade regime, the lifting of borders, and the disappearance of sovereignties - in short, to ignore that little difference that makes Mexicans - this extraordinary people who eat corn, now grown by Monsanto - an exception that deserves particular consideration, even in a "strictly commercial" agreement such as NAFTA.
Brigitte Morissette is a Mexican journalist. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us