by Nathan Einbinder

Politicians in Washington have long ignored the links between free trade agreements and their negative impacts on both social welfare and the environment. Regardless of his political motives, Barack Obama’s recent negative statements about the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, has begun a solid debate over the issue, and gives followers of his campaign the impression that he would critically examine the controversial agreement if elected next November.

The dire need to re-think NAFTA and other multilateral agreements cannot be overstated, and would require a dramatic shift in the overall direction of U.S. trade policy and the Washington Consensus, which includes institutions such as the World Bank, USAID, and the U.S. military. NAFTA does not simply represent a bad trade deal for the U.S.; it has been the blueprint for other similar agreements recently drafted, such as CAFTA in Central America and the failed FTAA for all the Americas (except Cuba).

Although NAFTA was originally thought to be a blessing for all parties involved, it has effectively derailed the Mexican rural economy by forcing millions of farmers into the heavily subsidized U.S. food market. Corn, the cultural symbol of Mesoamerica, has become uneconomic to grow in the countryside. The abrupt decrease in income and rise in unemployment amongst Mexican’s affected by the trade agreement has resulted in massive internal migration to the urban centers, and northward movement into the U.S. Since the ratification of the agreement, immigration to the U.S. has doubled, with environmental protection and human rights taking the back seat to free market policies that offer the majority of the population augmented insecurity and despair.

The current presidential candidates each have their own set of band-aid solutions for the immigration issue, yet by challenging NAFTA they would essentially be addressing the underlying causes of immigration, a topic most Washington politicians have been reluctant to discuss. In searching for the origin of poverty and inequality experienced by the majority of our southern neighbors, we inevitably expose a painful and embarrassing history, one in which the U.S. plays an intimate role in keeping nations perpetually dependant on foreign aid, and politically unstable since the era of colonialism. In a complex and often covert series of agreements and military interventions, we have successfully brought entire economies to their knees, completely restructuring them for the production of cheap exports to the Global North, and exploitation by huge multinational conglomerates. Disgusting human rights violations perpetrated by right wing dictatorships have been supported by our own elected governments in order to keep the global capitalist economy moving freely and openly, thus creating an environment nearly impossible for positive change and sustainability.

Although Obama did not vote for CAFTA, and has expressed interest in moving away from the Washington ‘status quo’, it is uncertain how he will go about changing the deeply entrenched paradigm that has dominated our foreign diplomacy for nearly 150 years. Institutions that promote ‘neoliberal trade’, in order to pry open all available markets, thus freeing them from nationalization and government control, are still on the loose, directing economies of the south and awarding governments for their cooperation with U.S. corporate interests. It would be an impossible feat to completely restructure this system of capital and power, and would almost certainly be political suicide to try, but if Mr. Obama is sincerely interested in pulling our economy out of the gutter, as well as the dozens of other nations that receive little benefit from our economic policies and agreements, addressing NAFTA and linking it to our own domestic problems would be a good start.

Nathan Einbinder is a graduate student in geography, with a focus on Latin American development.