Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!crackers!m2c!risky.ecs.umass.edu!umaecs!amh!newsacct From: harelb@cabot.dartmouth.edu (Harel Barzilai) Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive Subject: Guardian Analysis of "Fast Track" (II) (THEME) Message-ID: <6CC9024FC040021D@AMHERST> Date: 19 Jun 91 07:12:39 GMT Sender: Activists Mailing List Reply-To: Harel Barzilai Followup-To: talk.environment,alt.activism.d,misc.headlines,alt.save.the.earth Lines: 146 Approved: news@amherst Return-path: To: DEIRDRE SMITH , MADELINE CASEY , Amherst College , REBECCA STEIN , steven apsel X-Envelope-to: NWS_ACTV "According to Aridjis, U.S.-Mexican trade relations are currently permeated with a 'double standard'. He cites the fact that the Mexican market is flooded with fruits and vegetables which have been refused import into the U.S. because they bear residues of banned pesticides produced by U.S. companies in Mexico." "According to a study by the National University of Mexico, U.S. oil reserves are sufficient to cover national consumption for 9 years (at 1989 production rates); Canada has enough for 11 years; and Mexico, 59. By "pooling" access to the oil as a region, the US could post-pone a serious consumption crisis for 11 years, but Mexico's crisis would be hastened by 39 years." "[environmentalists] propose for inclusion in the Free Trade Treaty: that environmental standards be "harmonized" to the highest levels in any of the three countries; that countries mutually grant free access to their court systems for redress of injuries; that a country's right to use trade restrictive measures for conservation purposes be explicitly guaranteed as part of the agreement; that products banned domestically be banned from export; that any country which fails to abide by international environmental agreements be subject to trade sanctions." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Topic 44 Guardian analysis forthcoming dbarkin carnet.mexnews 9:06 pm May 14, 1991 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ================================= [ . . . c o n t i n u e d . . . ] ================================= Perhaps the most hotly debated free trade issue is oil. Mexico currently exports 60% of its total production to U.S. Ignacio Peon of the Pacto de Grupos Ecologistas is convinced that oil will be key to the Tri-Lateral Negotiations "whether it is on the table, or under it". According to a study by the National University of Mexico, U.S. oil reserves are sufficient to cover national consumption for 9 years (at 1989 production rates); Canada has enough for 11 years; and Mexico, 59. By "pooling" access to the oil as a region, the US could post-pone a serious consumption crisis for 11 years, but Mexico's crisis would be hastened by 39 years. The 1989 Canada-U.S. Agreement prohibits Canada from charging higher prices for export than for domestic consumption, and from reducing the proportion of oil, gas, and water dedicated to export, even in cases of shortages. Two major export-oriented energy development projects have been approved since the Agreement: a hydroelectric power plant in the James Bay area, and a natural gas pipeline across the Canadian Arctic (87% for export). A dearly held 1937 Constitutional ammendment reserves direct ownership of Mexican oil to the State, and government spokespersons insist repeatedly that "negotiations will not violate the Constitution". However, precedents exist for getting around the provision: In the tense negotiations following Mexico's August 1982 announcement that it could no longer make payments on its foreign debt, the Mexican government agreed to sell $1 billion worth of crude to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. [Experts suggest that "creative arrangements" will be developed to by-pass the ammendment: that PEMEX may be re-organized into a type of holding company, or that major U.S. oil companies may lend PEMEX badly needed exploration capital in exchange for a share of the oil discovered.] The Mexican environmental movement is in a different stage and circumstances than its U.S. and Canadian counterparts. Key spokespersons stressed the difficulty of access to the press; three mentioned that they have received death threats. "U.S. Congressional delegations are always impressed with our labor and environmental laws," noted Ignacio Peon of the Pacto de Grupos Ecologistas, "but what they don't realize is that in our one-party system we don't have the checks and balances to ensure that they're enforced." Homero Aridjis ratified: "We can not resolve our ecological crisis unless we resolve our 'democracy crisis'." Faced with the new challenges presented by the fast-advancing economic integration of the North American region, environmentalists in the three countries are taking the tack that "the best defense is a good offense". They suggest that the three governments draw up a long-term management plan such as the one currently being developed by the European Economic Community. They propose for inclusion in the Free Trade Treaty: that environmental standards be "harmonized" to the highest levels in any of the three countries; that countries mutually grant free access to their court systems for redress of injuries; that a country's right to use trade restrictive measures for conservation purposes be explicitly guaranteed as part of the agreement; that products banned domestically be banned from export; that any country which fails to abide by international environmental agreements be subject to trade sanctions. The border areas are taking the lead in developing bi-national, non-governmental coordination to defend the environment. The Texas Center for Policy Studies is part of a growing network of non-governmental organizations in southern Texas and the northern Mexican states of Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas and Sonora. The Toxic Wastes Campaign has been working with Mexican and U.S. border communities to document and confront environmental deterioration there. On April 7, 1991, on the eve of Bush-Salinas's consultation, some 21 Canadian, Mexican and U.S. national organizations and coalitions held press conferences in their respective capitals to propose that "the environmental issues raised by the proposed Free Trade Agreement be addressed in the agreement itself", and then enforced by a tri-lateral commission of government, industry, and non-governmental representatives. For now, the issue is awaiting the fateful June 1 "fast track" decision by U.S. Congress. Its likely approval would limit Congressional involvement to a simple yea or nay to the final agreement. Fearing that opposition will defeat "fast track" or even the treaty itself, proponents are promising parallel bi- or tri-lateral agreements to address environmental and labor concerns. In Mexico, the Treaty must be approved by the Senate, 54 of whose 60 members belong to the official party. remain optimistic. Pointing to growing bi-lateral cooperation along the border, Sanchez affirms that "we are not starting from zero now as we were 20 years ago." Alfonso Gonzalez of the Ecological Analysis Group asserts that: "The inevitable integration of the North American region means that our work towards participatory planning and sustainable development has suddenly become international... We may not be able to get the guarantees we need in this agreement, but the story isn't over yet." For more information on Mexico-U.S.-Canada environmentalist coordination regarding Free Trade, contact: Mexico--Homero Aridjis, Grupo de los Cien, tel: 011-525-540-7379; U.S.-- Stewart Hudson, National Wildlife Federation, 202-797-5444; Canada--Janine Ferretti, Pollution Probe, 416-926-9876. ##################################################################