It has been almost a decade and a half since Canadian nationalists began to lead the fight against the free trade phenomenon. Canadian nationalists have very little to show for their efforts. Both the 1988 Canada - U.S. Free Trade Agreement and its successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement became entrenched facts of life in this country. Furthermore, the success of those who promoted these trade agreements has given these people the confidence to champion what has been aptly termed NAFTA on steroids or the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.
Having said this I want to make it very clear that I largely agree with David Orchard and Gordon Coggins' views concerning the overwhelmingly detrimental effects of free trade but would suggest that if they want to see the worst it has created they should tour Mexico's infamous Maquiladora Zone. I also agree with them about the desirability of getting out from underneath the shackles of the N.A.F.T.A. and stopping the M.A.I. However, I substantially disagree with them and other Canadian nationalists with regard to the way to fight free trade and the global corporate agenda that lies behind it.
I believe I have a positive view of the struggle against free trade. I say that because I believe the free trade phenomenon exemplifies the fact that in every challenge lies an opportunity. And the opportunity we are presented with is to build cross border solidarity in opposition to the global corporate agenda. But what, in practical terms, does this mean and why is cross border solidarity the way to go in order to really advance the fight against free trade and the global corporate agenda that lies behind it?
The simplest ways for me to explain what cross border solidarity means is for me to tell you about an organization I have belonged to for more than five years and to point to a very concrete example of success in the fight against free trade. The organization is the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras (CJM). It was formed in 1989. It has played and continues to play a key role in the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, in Mexico in opposition to the N.A.F.T.A. The CJM is comprised of over 100 labour, social justice, women's, environmental, and religious organizations in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It is a very large, broadly based tri-national organization with a strategic perspective that is not rooted in economic nationalism. It is based on internationalism and solidarity with the victims of the global corporate agenda. In a very real sense, the CJM's strategic perspective implicitly recognizes that if you are serious about taking on what is a global corporate agenda you must be prepared to struggle against that agenda on a scale comparable to the scale of the activities of those who are implementing it.
This brings me to the one clear and unequivocal success story to date in the fight against free trade. In discussing it I cannot emphasize strongly enough that this success was not scored in this country and in no way was a result of economic nationalism. Indeed, its occurrence had everything to do with sustained cross border solidarity in the fight against the effects of free trade and the defense of those who are the most victimized by it. I'm talking about workers and particularly workers in Mexico.
I am referring to the recent defeat suffered by the Clinton Administration in its attempt to get Congressional approval for "fast track" legislation. That legislation would have given Slick Willy in the White House the power to negotiate new trade deals extending the jurisdiction of the NAFTA and put those new trade deals to a vote without giving the U.S. Congress a chance to amend them first. The defeat of fast track was a huge and long overdue embarrassment for the Clinton Administration. More importantly, it was an even bigger defeat for those who are promoting free trade. This defeat of free trade has also proven to be very revealing. I say this because there has been no substantive discussion or analysis of it by the opponents of free trade in this country. And one must ask why? To be honest with you I'm not sure why. But I tend to think that those who base their opposition to free trade on economic nationalism are inclined to have a rather narrow vision with respect to this issue that impairs their ability to fully appreciate such developments.
This brings me to the matter of what factored into Clinton's defeat on fast track. You would never know from our corporate controlled media but his defeat was, in large measure, a direct consequence of developments at a small Korean-owned auto parts plant in Mexico's infamous Maquiladora Zone.
Specifically, the approximately 100 workers employed at this small auto parts plant outside of Tijuana that produced exclusively for Hyundai began last May and just reached a partially successful conclusion last month. The struggle at this plant was prompted initially by the employer's failure to pay the workers according to the requirements of Mexico's labour laws and by appalling working conditions. It was also focused on getting rid of a government-controlled and pro-employer labour organization and replacing it with an independent union of the workers' choice. The workers' struggle pitted them directly against conditions which only exist because Mexico's government gives corporations a free hand to do as they please by not enforcing its own labour laws and because the provisions of the NAFTA.'s labour side agreement do next to nothing to uphold workers' rights.
Very significantly, these workers waged this protracted struggle with the ongoing support of activists in nearby San Diego who are part of the CJM and with support from labour and social justice activists across North America. Furthermore, their supporters in San Diego took things further by waging a high profile public campaign that got widespread attention in the media and managed to enlist the support of U.S. members of Congress who are critical of NAFTA. As a direct result of this the struggle being waged by these workers became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. Congress over fast track legislation designed to facilitate the expansion of NAFTA. Those members of Congress seized on the struggle at this Mexican auto parts plant because they recognized that it constituted definitive proof of the complete failure of the NAFTA side agreement on labour to provide any meaningful protection of the rights of Mexican workers. This provided proof, as if any is needed, of the fact that NAFTA only serves the interests of the transnational corporations; the same transnational corporations that so often flee Canada and the U.S. for Mexico where they mercilessly exploit Mexican workers.
Simply stated, the labour dispute at this auto parts plant had the direct effect of substantially stiffening opposition to Clinton's fast track legislation in the U.S. Congress and this prompted him to indefinitely postpone a vote on it because Clinton knew he would lose. Consequently, the struggle of these workers combined with a protracted campaign of cross border solidarity effectively stopped efforts in the U.S. to expand the jurisdiction of NAFTA dead in their tracks.
Having said this I want to state in no uncertain terms that this critical victory would probably have never been achieved were it not for the efforts of members and supporters of the CJM demonstrating internationalism. They demonstrated internationalism by engaging in cross border solidarity in support of a class-based struggle by workers in Mexico. Indeed, this never would have happened if all of the opponents of free trade had a strategic perspective based on economic nationalism. It is likewise of no small significance that for all its activity and for all the years it has existed the movement against free trade in this country has completely failed to produce a comparable example of success in the fight against free trade. Its record is one of successive failures.
I also wanted to touch on the question of the integral relationship between corporate restructuring, in all its dimensions, (starting with work reorganization on the shop floor up to and including industry-wide restructuring) and the promotion of free trade. However, for the sake of time I will simply say that free trade cannot be properly understood without an in-depth analysis of corporate restructuring and invite questions from the floor regarding this. Thank you.
Bruce Allen
February 26, 1998
No comments:
Post a Comment