The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) eliminated, or will eliminate (by 2009), all trade barriers between Canada, Mexico, and United States. Not long after NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994, the Clinton Administration made the extension of that agreement (the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA) its top trade priority. Specifically, President Clinton wants to expand NAFTA to include all of Central and South America, thus creating a free trade zone that would extend from Alaska's Point Barrow in the north down to Argentina's Tierra del Fuego in the south. But such a move is potentially disastrous, as demonstrated by America's five-year experience with NAFTA. This paper will argue against the extension because NAFTA has already had a negative impact on the economy, environment, and welfare of both the U.S. and Mexico, and those consequences will only be compounded by the FTAA.During the debate over NAFTA, critics charged that Mexico's low wages would result in a ôgiant sucking soundö of American jobs headed to Mexico. And that was before Mexico devalued its currency. Mexico's financial crisis in 1995 prompted the government to devalue the peso, with disastrous results for the average Mexican. The currency devaluation benefited businesses by helping them compete, at the expense of workers, who watched their buying power nearly evaporate in a matter of days. Workers had little say in the matter because Mexico lacks democratic ins
. . .
ch were designed to increase cooperation among the three countries. Mexico passed environmental laws similar to those in the U.S. and Canada and created an environment ministry. Nonetheless, that has not prevented the environmental disaster at Mexico's borders, which has dire consequences for the U.S. and bodes ill for the rest of the hemisphere should NAFTA be extended.
Since 1994, the number of maquiladoras (factories that import raw materials to make goods that they export) in Mexico has doubled. Most of the factories have sprung up near the U.S.-Mexico border, a region already overburdened by population growth. The infrastructure of Mexico's border cities is threatening to crumble under the weight of the most recent growth. Many of the towns are running out of waterù18 percent do not have drinking water and 30 percent lack sewage). They also often lack basic services such as rubbish removal (43 percent have no refuse service), which poses a huge threat to the health and welfare of people living on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border (A greener, or browner, Mexico?, August 7, 1999, p. 26).
That threat is compounded by toxic waste. Mexico has only one facility dedicated to toxic waste, and it can handle just 12 percent
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Despite NAFTA's, WTO WTO, Sierra Club, Proponents NAFTA, Francis October, Mexico City's, Mexico Mexico, Mexico August, Argentina Brazil, Supporters FTAA, los angeles, free trade, toxic waste, los angeles times, environmental laws, angeles times, trade agreement, nafta extended, october 3, trade agreements, turtle wars, angeles times pp, wars october 3, october 3 1998, greener browner mexico,
Approximate Word count = 3188
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
