An event of "epochal proportions." (1) This phrase has been used to describe last November's defeat of fast-track legislation and begins to hint at the larger issues fast-track and its failure symbolize. As Nicholas Vitek, and the body of this Task Force study have illustrated, there is much more at stake in the debate surrounding globalized free trade than economists would have us believe. The failure of fast-track is one of President Clinton's "worst defeats ever" as it effectively halted him from "negotiating the comprehensive trade pacts that he wanted as his legacy." (2) According to Daniel Seligman, Sierra Club lobbyist, the defeat of fast-track is "one of the most significant events to happen in American Foreign policy in fifty years." (3) He goes on the say that "fast-track failure has left U.S. international policy in disarray." (4) The failure of fast-track is monumental for two reasons: fast-track's defeat has placed a serious hold on the U.S. government's onward march towards an increasingly neoliberal economy, effectively turning state sovereignty over to multinational corporations. More importantly the defeat of fast track is a demonstration of "democracy reasserting itself and making a difference." (5) The defeat of fast-track was a tremendous victory. A white house aide explains the obstacles to the fast-track defeat, "we beat money, power, the corporations. We beat Clinton and all the editorial writers, corporate America, (House Speaker Newt) Gingrich, (Senate Majority Leader Trent) Lott and former presidents." (6)
Since the 1980's U.S. foreign policy has been focused on the consolidation of neoliberal economic policies in Latin America and the Caribbean. President Bush's vision of a free trade zone stretching from Anchorage to Tierra Del Fuego saw its manifestation through the Enterprise for the America's initiative. President Clinton has added fuel to this campaign by "implementing a number of far-reaching initiatives that have opened economies to foreign investment and trade, and locked in the structural adjustment programs first implemented in the 1980's. NAFTA and the plans for its expansion provide the most vivid illustration of his trade policy in Latin America. (7) The defeat of fast-track effectively calls into question the President's mandate from his predecessors to continue down the path of neoliberal economic policy. Without fast-track authority President Clinton's ambitious goal to create free trade with Western Hemisphere nations by 2005 and with Pacific Rim nations by 2020 has been put on hold indefinitely. Just as Latin American governments are liberalizing their economies and approaching the U.S. as trading partners the fast-track defeat calls into question U.S. credibility as a leader in continued hemispheric and global free trade expansion. This defeat "sends a signal that the president is unable to deliver on fundamental commitments about free trade [as] the unrelenting forces of trade, technology and private capital continue to drive hemispheric countries toward greater integration. (8)
The defeat of fast-track legislation can be attributed to the failures of NAFTA both internationally and domestically, the variety of which this task force study has illustrated in depth. In Mexico NAFTA has failed to live up to its promises to curb migration, improve working conditions, financial stability, and environmental quality. The PRI's violence towards the Zapatistas does not lead one to believe that NAFTA has led to significant democratic reform, if anything this event points to the exact opposite. In Canada the pressure of un-fair trade has severely hampered democratic processes and decision making as well as further eroded the social safety net Canadians pride themselves on. Domestically, U.S. labor has been adversely affected by the artificial suppression of wages in Mexico, and there is increasing polarization within American society. Environmental quality is increasingly compromised, especially in the U.S.-Mexico border regions. All of these events have paralleled the elimination of the social safety net. NAFTA has improved the economy of member countries on a macro-economic level, yet at what cost? While NAFTA represents business interests quite well, in its current state it is seriously compromising the quality of life for many in all three member countries.
In light of this Task Force's findings it is not surprising that the defeat of fast-track legislation is largely attributed to public opinion. "Polls consistently showed that a majority of American's are skeptical about of the alleged benefits of NAFTA- style trade pacts. By a margin of 56% to 34%, respondents in an October 1997 Wall Street Journal/NBC poll said that they opposed giving the president fast-track authority. Another poll found only 26% saying they thought the U.S. benefited from NAFTA." (9) Main stream media such as the New York Times have taken the stance that public skepticism towards NAFTA and opposition to the granting of fast-track authority for the president was not based on a realistic analysis of free trade, rather that public opinion was 'somehow delusional.' Considering neoliberal economic policy's impact on the population at large, the most accurate opinion of NAFTA's results would be the public as opposed to those for whose benefit NAFTA was drafted, who are far removed from any unattractive side effects of NAFTA. It is the public who experiences the impact of job displacement, wage disparity, economic instability, union busting, compromised food safety and the restriction of democratic participation, among others. Public opinion is certainly a valid barometer of economic policy success.
NAFTA's side effects have not been lost on citizens nor on the U.S. Congress. Those who did not vote for Fast Track were disappointed that the President did not live up to promises regarding labor improvements, environmental protections or human rights provisions in NAFTA. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, for example, reporting on a trip that he and House Minority Whip David Bonior recently took to the U.S.-Mexico border, wrote: "Rather than improving conditions the NAFTA has validated Mexico's system of labor relations, wage-setting mechanisms and environmental enforcement that has damaged the standard of living, health and safety of the Mexican people." The Senator is "unwilling to support new trade negotiations that do not address these fundamental flaws by including labor rights and the environment as chapters in the core of the agreement equal in stature and force and linked to provisions on investment and trade." (10) Fast Track would have passed with democratic support. Democrats disappointed by NAFTA would have granted fast-track authority if the proposal included environmental and labor standards. (11)
The pro-business NAFTA negotiators insist that social issues, such as labor rights and environmental protections, have no place within NAFTA. They believe NAFTA is solely an economic agreement. This task force has demonstrated the reverse to be true. NAFTA has shown a tremendous impact on labor, the environment, democratic stability and has exacerbated economic disparity. Those who contend that such issues do not require consideration in free trade agreements cite the dangers of 'big government.' Such arguments are predicated on an outdated understanding of the world system. As was discussed in the Introduction to this Task Force paper by Nicholas Vitek. Economic policy-making cannot be isolated from social and environmental issues in an interdependent world.
NAFTA demonstrates the contradictory processes at work in neoliberal economic policy by exacerbating the fissure between classes. These contradictory processes demonstrate the changing reality of governance in an increasingly global world system. Due to increased capital mobility and advanced information technology global economics has become more of a reality today than ever before. Just as business and governments are attempting to understand their place in this emerging system, so are social movements. The defeat of fast-track gives testament that social groups are not only learning how the economy affects social issues, such movements are also learning appropriate ways to respond to the changing nature of governance. It is encouraging that the administration has responded to environmental and labor concerns by slowing down the push for expanded free trade. NAFTA has galvanized social movements transnationally. This is the first step in opening up the NAFTA debate to represent a broad variety of public interests. NAFTA negotiations may have been conducted clandestinely, with little public participation, yet social movements are learning how to respond to their changing role within the move towards global free trade agreements.
President Clinton's failed attempt at reviving fast track legislation can be blamed on his failure to foster broad base political support. In seeking fast-track approval the President built a coalition that was made up of the Republican party and himself. While this coalition well represented the interests of wealthy corporations it marginalized the President's own Democratic party, sacrificing the President's own constituents. The main stream media's analysis of the fast-track defeat merely as a symptom of political partisanship or pressure from the 'union bosses' is short sighted at best. In light of this task force's analysis, the failures of NAFTA gave democrats every reason not to grant fast-track authority to the President. What is suspicious is not who voted for fast-track, rather who voted for it and why. By attributing votes against fast-track as being motivated by Union pressure "few media pundits pointed to corporate contributions as an explanation for why a large minority of House members voted for fast-track. Why was it the 'no' votes that needed explanation, anyway?" (12) Especially in consideration of public opinion strongly opposing fast-track and displaying ambivalent attitudes towards NAFTA. "After all, which is more noteworthy: representatives voting with the opinions of their constituents, or against them?" (13)
The present is the ideal time for intervention on the part of the America's citizens to mount an effective movement for an alternative future based on a diverse array of cultures and social issues, as opposed to the purely economic tone that currently dominates NAFTA and other international institutions. With the recent failure of Fast Track legislation the time is ripe for the U.S. to organize for the restructuring of NAFTA to represent a wide spectrum of interests. There are a wide variety of examples that testify to diverse areas from which to draw strength from for the formation of a coalition. Uniting for the creation of responsive global free trade within NAFTA could even lead to real successes for social movements and their political representation.
With in the U.S. there exists examples of the growing awareness and power among social movements. "For the first time, environmentalist groups have made a serious attempt to influence international trade policy. Environmental mobilization generated new levels of intergroup cooperation in policy-making, information sharing and networking, as well as setting the stage for the creation of a new North American alliance of environmental organizations." (14) Labor groups have a long history of representing workers within the U.S. and Stacey Stack has described the success of women's groups in representing women's needs across racial and class lines. Considering the increasing interdependence within the NAFTA countries, transnational coalitions are a natural extension. This Task Force has demonstrated the growing unification among U.S. workers across borders and the transnational women's movement shows considerable promise to unite and represent women at the supranational level. "Women's organizations have participated in the coalitions formed in each country to protest the nature of the process of regional integration. Nafta has given rise to interesting forms of social movements in Canada, the US and, Mexico. Some of the most important and creative of the transnational exchanges which have occurred in response to Nafta have occurred among women." (15) There exist many obstacles in creating a coalition that spans race, nationality, social status and gender but many organizations have been successful in doing just that and have a wealth of experience to draw on.
Up to this point the NAFTA debate has been strangely and frighteningly one sided as well as kept out of the public arena. There are so many promising possibilities for the future of the North American Continent if this debate is extended to represent the majority rather than the minority. This Task Force has demonstrated the need and opportunity for the creation of democratic supra-national institutions that are capable of mitigating the loss of economic and political sovereignty that has resulted from an increasingly interdependent, global economy. This Task Force's policy proposals "recognize and empower a variety of social groups, not just corporations, so as to encourage socioeconomic stability and increase democratic decision making within NAFTA structures." Strengthening and improving enforcement of the labor and environmental side agreements and the use of committee experts under the North American Commission illustrate how NAFTA could be improved upon. The European Union offers an institutional example in order to achieve this goal, as the EU and NAFTA are outgrowths of the GATT and WTO, the EU example is a pertinent one.
President Clinton alienated members of his own party by proposing to bar labor and environmental standards in future trade agreements. Democrats who were against fast-track were not against fast-track authority all together, rather they sought an alternative that would allow for environmental and labor protections in future trade agreements. However, House Republicans have refused to bend on the issue of enhanced labor and environmental protections. The power of social movements will not be easily mitigated and unless business leaders and House Republicans compromise there will be no fast-track authority. With out fast-track legislation the U.S. will not be able to take full advantage of worldwide trade liberalization. "Latin America is the fastest growing region in the world for United States exports. By the first decade of the next century it is expected to be the world's primary market for American products and services, exceeding Europe and Japan combined. Mexico already rivals the Japanese market." While the U.S. effort to expand free trade has been seriously compromised by the fast-track defeat, "intraregional trade has also expanded [within Latin America]dramatically. Apart from NAFTA, the most significant subregional trade pact is Mercosur, the Common Market of the South that was set up in 1991 by Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, with Bolivia and Chile as associate members" Mercosur has started to negotiate free trade agreements with the Andean Community and the European Union." (16) President Clinton said it best when he stated, "If we don't seize these opportunities, our competitors will." To take advantage of emerging markets U.S. business will have to compromise on the issue of labor and environmental standards. In so doing the 'seized opportunity' far out weighs the purely economic opportunity the President spoke of. There is hope that NAFTA and future trade agreements can be formed to alleviate existing problems that the current NAFTA has exacerbated. "Had business been forced to the negotiating table against a powerful coalition of NAFTA skeptics, and with the Clinton administration as broker, corporations might have accepted provisions in the side agreements and domestic U.S. legislation unlikely in other contexts." (17) There remains hope that this may come to fruition with Clinton's recent fast track defeat and his original 'high road intentions.'
The era of free trade has dawned, it is not the opinion of this Task Force that protectionism is either feasible nor desirable. The goal of this Task Force is not to build a case for the abolition of free trade. As Senator Gephardt states, "The question isn't between free trade and protectionism. The question is what are the terms of trade and who benefits. We must not blindly pursue the same path we've been on" (Fournier). (18)
This task force has demonstrated the need for the creation of democratic supranational institutions that will mitigate the loss of economic and political sovereignty that has resulted from an increasingly global economy. NAFTA is an illustration of the shift in power from state governments to MNC's. While it is an entirely legitimate need of industry to make profits it is also a legitimate need of citizens to breathe clean air, have a safe working conditions and live in a stable, democratic society.
The implementation of NAFTA and the defeat of fast-track legislation are merely representative of larger issues. The integration of the global economy implies a shift in sovereignty from national governments to MNC's. The creation of new institutions to counter that power shift is necessary to ensure the health and well being of all citizens. "North America thus [stands] as the symbol of a highly unequal world currently without adequate concepts, institutions, or mechanisms to come to grips with perhaps the most important challenge of the contemporary era: the remaking of trade and investment relations between rich and poor countries in a socially equitable and environmentally sustainable manner." (19)