Statement of Witness

We are a delegation of U.S. citizens who visited Mexico with Witness for Peace to learn first-hand about globalization and free trade. We went because we had concerns about the human cost of the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) we experience as consumers in the United States. As people compelled by a sense of civic and ethical responsibility, we committed to educate ourselves about NAFTA and the neo-liberal economic model it represents by speaking directly with the people that are affected by it. Through WFP, we have spoken with farmers, workers, union leaders, indigenous people and U.S. government officials.

Our experiences have reinforced two core beliefs. We believe in the promise of democracy and freedom that is the foundation of our country. We want to see this promise upheld in all aspects of U.S. policy and actions in the world, including international trade. Second, we believe that in all economic and development models that underpin U.S. policy, the needs and the dignity of the people should be the primary concern.

The duty of governments is to ensure that economic models serve the needs of the majority of people and not that people are forced to serve an economic model that benefits only corporations. We have listened to representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Embassy discuss the NAFTA regime and we are deeply concerned by the focus on macroeconomic indicators as the basis for evaluating the success of trade agreements. Indicators such as ballooning GDP and GNP are referenced exclusively and other indicators such as falling wages and an increasing number of people "in extreme poverty" are ignored.

Through our experiences with the people of Mexico we have seen the human face and the consequences of NAFTA and the neo-liberal economic model. We would like to share our witness with you and have summarized it below in three parts.

Part I: Effects of NAFTA

Workers, farmers, and activists we spoke with on the delegation stated that their economic situation has not improved under NAFTA. In spite of increasing GNP in Mexico, the majority of Mexican workers are in worse financial condition than when NAFTA was implemented. Hector de la Cueva, of the civil society network Hemispheric Social Alliance, said, "Poverty in the cities has grown but worse consequences are in the countryside." Many sugar cane workers and corn farmers, in competition with subsidized U.S. crops, have left their land and migrated to cities, seeking work in the maquiladoras. Even the U.S. Embassy's economic officer, referring to the lack of benefits of NAFTA to Mexican working people, said "the transitional economy does cause pain" that will "take a generation to work itself out."

Our witness of NAFTA causes us to harbor serious doubts about the neo-liberal economic model. NAFTA has been in effect for eight years and the experience of the Mexican people is one of massive migration, social dislocation, and grinding poverty. We think that it is overly optimistic to theorize that these problems will work themselves "in several decades" as indicated by U.S. diplomats. We now have seen many years of trade liberalization and while the U.S focuses only on a few macroeconomic indicators, in Mexico, another generation is being raised in more desperate poverty than the last generation.

It is our belief that sound economic planning has as its primary goal the enhancement of the lives, education, and opportunities of the people. We recommend that all free trade agreements be designed to facilitate this goal and that the criteria used to evaluate the success of trade agreements shift from simplistic numbers like GDP and GNP toward more representative indicators such as real wages, a standardized unemployment number, poverty rate, and access to education.

Specifically, we have three recommendations regarding standards for guiding ongoing U.S. trade programs. First, we recommend that national food security be a consideration in the planning of agricultural development and tariff and trade agreements. A country cannot protect freedom and democracy if it cannot grow a substantial percentage of the basic staples to feed its population. In Mexico, unequal trade relations are undermining Mexico's food security by undercutting its ability to grow corn and other staples for its people.

Second, we recommend that no structural adjustment programs dictated by the World Bank, IMF or other multinational debt management agencies interfere with a sovereign nation's spending on social welfare programs. Education, protection of the elderly and disabled, and protection of workers in times of cyclical unemployment are some of the primary functions of a democratic government. No development programs or debt repayment programs should recommend or require that a nation drastically reduce spending in these areas in order to receive funds. Because these structural readjustment programs often provide a required foundation for free trade agreements and favored trading status, we feel that United States should wield its influence in this area.

Finally, any trade agreements in which the U.S. participates should discourage any development or commercial projects that could reasonably be considered to result in large-scale migration or displacement of indigenous people. We have witnessed the shanty-towns growing up around Mexico City and we have talked with indigenous people who are suffering the pain of uprooting their entire families from the land or watching fathers and brothers leave for agricultural jobs in the U.S. and Canada. These migrations cause misery, break up families and communities, and deepen poverty for the nation's most vulnerable people. Commercial and development projects that take place under trade liberalization regimes should require the assent of the indigenous communities that will be affected by the natural resource use and infrastructure projects that accompany them.

Part II: FTAA Negotiating Process

While the NAFTA regime continues to reshape Mexican society to the needs of multinational corporations, the U.S., Mexico, and many other countries are planning for new trade agreements, culminating in the hemispheric Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). In the paragraphs above, we have addressed some of our concerns with the U.S.'s first free trade agreement in the Americas. Now, we would like to discuss the emerging problems we witnessed with the current FTAA negotiating process.

In order to improve free trade agreements and ensure that they include adequate protection for worker's rights, food security and environmental regulation, a multitude of non-governmental organizations, which will be referred to as Civil Society, have attempted to participate in the shaping of the FTAA. Unfortunately, despite their necessary role, Civil Society has thus far been blocked even from simply observing trade meetings, and their proposals and recommendations seem to fall on deaf ears. One of the leading Mexican NGOs dealing with free trade issues is the Mexican Action Network on Free Trade (RMALC). RMALC has made numerous attempts during the most recent rounds of FTAA negotiations to receive draft versions of the treaty, but has been repeatedly rebuffed. RMALC also describes their difficulties using the "Social Forum", the official means for Civil Society to register their ideas regarding the FTAA process. Even after repeated submissions to the Social Forum, RMALC has yet to receive any confirmation as to whether these submissions have been received or registered.

Representatives from the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City have stated that the current round of FTAA negotiations is "highly technical" in nature, revolving primarily around creating a consensus on terms, and that Civil Society is not included in talks for this reason. Numerous NGOs, however, possess the technical knowledge of economics needed to participate meaningfully in these negotiations, yet their requests to be included in meetings have been repeatedly turned down. We feel that the transparency of the FTAA process has been severely limited, and that this anti-democratic process calls into question the validity of any resulting treaty.

Despite this discouraging lack of accountability in the trade negotiations, Civil Society has responded with an unprecedented coming together of activists from across the hemisphere united by this issue. The Hemispheric Social Alliance (HSA) has been formed to focus the voices of concerned citizens throughout the Americas and is currently working in every American country to educate, engage, and empower Civil Society on the issue of free trade. These initiatives include nationwide plebiscites, polls, and social forums. We feel that the direct inclusion of the HSA in the FTAA negotiating process would not only improve this process and its results, but also lend international social credibility to any resulting treaties. We believe that this model of inclusive negotiations should be adapted for all future trade negotiations and should be put into place as early as the next round of FTAA talks, which will take place in Mexico.

Part III: Labor and Human Rights in International Trade and Commerce

Through our conversations with workers and union organizers, and our reading on the nature of the labor movement and working conditions in the maquila sector, we have become very concerned about the lack of commitment to basic human rights and labor protections we take for granted in the United States. While we understand that many of the labor and human rights issues fall squarely on the Mexican government, we know that poor countries are engaged in a Œrace to the bottom' to offer to multinational corporations attractive deals that promise weak enforcement of environmental laws and a docile labor force.

As concerned citizens we feel that it is imperative that labor and human rights standards keep parity with the progress of free trade agreements that currently benefit only the corporations. The right to free association should be considered an inalienable right of workers in any country and corporations based in the U.S. should be legally barred from doing business in countries where these rights are abrogated. In Mexico, some progress has been made in creating independent unions that are more appropriate to the current modes of production in the maquilas. Particularly in the Kukdong factory in Atlixco, Puebla diplomatic pressure from the U.S. government and solidarity movements among U.S. consumers and unions helped to ensure that minimal rights for the workers were observed. However, this victory came only after months of struggle in which workers were beaten, attacked, and mistreated by their employer. We do not want such a price to be paid for our clothing, or our cars, or any products we buy in the United States.

Consumers in the U.S. have made it clear in numerous boycotts and campaigns that sweatshop labor is not a trade-off they are willing to accept for cheap goods. From tuna, to carpets, to soccer balls, and sneakers, when consumers know the facts they overwhelmingly reject products that harm people or the environment and demand safeguards, notifications, and codes of corporate conduct that let them know products are free from cruelty and exploitation. Yet, multinational corporations repeat the same exploitive productive relations in country after country, seeking the cheapest and most docile labor force.

We want the United States to bring its formidable weight to bear and ensure that safeguards for workers and the environment, and living wages, are built in to any future trade agreements. It will be difficult, but it is the right thing to do. And the United States does not need to wait for other countries to commit to the same standards. These standards should be applied to any company based in the United States or whose goods are imported into the United States. When the United States sets high standards for its own companies and enforces those rules, it will make it easier for poor countries to establish their own high standards.

Conclusion

We have spoken with many people from different aspects of Civil Society in Mexico and one theme persists. From farmers and indigenous villages, to union organizers, to feminists and human rights groups, the people have developed an insightful analysis of trade policies and the neoliberal economic model. Their analysis grows from their own experience of how trade policies and structural adjustment programs affect their lives. They are using this experience to raise their own consciousness and that of their communities. Through this linking of direct experience with thoughtful analysis of broad economic and social issues, they have developed valuable proposals about the direction that meaningful development for the hemisphere should take.

We, the members of the WFP delegation believe it is time for government to prioritize the voices of Civil Society over the demands of big business. We believe that structural adjustment programs and trade policies should begin by considering the expressed will of the people and the self-determination and dignity should be the guiding principles for the treaties. Democracy and transparency should be the hallmarks of the negotiating process.

In upcoming negotiations on the FTAA, and all of the trade agreements the United States is currently negotiating in the hemisphere, the U.S. should promote a strong foundation in ensuring human rights and sustainable environmental practices. Existing agreements, such as the Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States could be used to buttress these efforts. The European Union has demonstrated that trade agreements can promote and enhance protections for human rights and the environment. The United States should follow this example and make international trade truly a tool to improve the lives of all people living in the Americas.