Like virtually all economists, I like trade. It doesn't matter if the trade is between my neighbor and me, or a Mexican and me, trade benefits me and by extension, all of society. President Clinton wisely and at some political risk signed the legislation creating NAFTA; it was one of his crowning achievements. Trade has benefited both nations.
Protectionist elements within the U.S. have slowed the implementation of NAFTA. Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the United States, explains a long standing dispute that recently flared and in which the U.S. government has not acted in good faith (Sarukhan, Arturo. "Congress Doesn't Respect NAFT," Wall Street Journal," March 18, 2009).
Nobody can argue that Mexico hasn't worked tirelessly for more than a decade to avoid a dispute with the United States over Mexican long-haul trucks traveling through this country. But free and fair trade hit another red light this past week. The U.S. Congress, which has now killed a modest and highly successful U.S.-Mexico trucking demonstration program, has sadly left my government no choice but to impose countermeasures after years of restraint and goodwill.
Then and now, this was never about the safety of American roads or drivers; it was and has been about protectionism, pure and simple.
Are Mexican trucks and drivers really as safe at ours? Sarukhan reports on an experiment run jointly between the U.S. and Mexico.
[I]n 2007 an agreement was reached that included the implementation of a demonstration program in which up to 100 carriers from each nation would be allowed to participate. This program was designed precisely to address the concerns voiced by those opposed to cross-border trucking. The demonstration program, launched in September 2007, was an unmitigated success. During the 18 months that the program was in operation, 26 carriers from Mexico (with 103 trucks) and 10 from the U.S. (with 61 trucks) crossed the border over 45,000 times without any significant incident or accident. Moreover, according to reports of both the Department of Transportation's inspector general and an independent evaluation panel, Mexico's carriers participating in the program have a safety record far better than that of all other carriers operating in the U.S.
The people we elect to represent us should act more like they are governing the world's lone superpower and an international beacon of freedom by honoring the trade agreements that we have signed. We should hold them accountable at the ballot box when they do no
Posts
I do think that the U.S. breaking the trade agreement is down-right despicable, but Mexico needs to ease up a little. They are the one with a trade surplus.
ReplyDeleteWith the way things are today with the economic recession, the US shouldn't be looking at ways to push our trade partners away. If they continue to do so Mexico may end up just closing trade agreements since the United States is so worried about safety of these trucks. What are they trying to acomplish by pushing these new restrictions? One thing they will acomplish is Mexico not bringing in their goods and causing prices of the certain goods to rise. Just one more thing we dont need at this time.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the sudden reasoning to "impose countermeasures after years of restraint and goodwill." If our border really was crossed over 45,ooo times, I'm thorougly impressed and suprised that neither nation of trade caused any serious accident. I mean let's face it-the more times you perform an action, the more likely it is for an accident to oocur. I understand our government wants safety, but are taking such extreme measures worth risking the loss of a major trade partner?
ReplyDeleteSarah K. G.
The United States as a country needs to realize that we always in the spotlight when it comes to things like this. The U.S. will be made to look like a bunch of scared and greedy people that don't want their jobs taken by people from another country. What happened to the U.S. being a melting pot? Well, things like these have brought us from a nice sturdy stew to chicken broth. The sooner we realize how much trade with everyone helps us, the better off we'll be as a country.
ReplyDeleteGarrett Jaynes
I don't understand why the United States would risk losing a major trade during a time of economic hardship. Mexico has proven itself worthy in the experiment from 2007, and has attempted to maintain a peaceful relationship with the U.S. while disputing all of this. These facts alone should prove to the U.S. that there is no problem allowing the passage of Mexican trucks onto our soil. The full article also mentions that using Mexican trucks would help the environment, thus reducing pollutiona and diminishing our dependence on foreign oil. The most qualified people should be allowed to do the job, and right now I see the Mexicans as the most qualified.
ReplyDeleteBacking out on our agreement would destroy our nation's credibility. Trade is 100% necessary for us, especially with the economy as of now. Trading with Mexico not only increases our real GDP but theirs as well. Trade is obviously our best bet right now, and it is apparent that Mexico has followed through with NAFTA ever since its creation. We need to trade with Mexico just as they need to trade with us. Seriously, where is the pride and honor this country was founded on?
ReplyDelete-Lorena Vargas
One of the ten principles of economics states that "Trade can make everyone better off," so why is America creating more problems than it already has? I know safety is extremely important but Mexico has been a trading partner for years. America is now suffering from an economic crisis and creating problems with one of our trading partners would only make matters worse.
ReplyDelete