NACTI Neg – MNDI DM
A2 NAFTA
1NC NAFTA
Status Quo solves trade- both Obama and Pena Nieto are pushing for deeper trade
relations
Seelke 13- Specialist in Latin American Affairs, (Clare Ribando Seelke, “Mexico’s New Adminstration: priorities and key
issues in US-Mexico Relations”, published by the congressional research service, published on January 16, 2013,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42917.pdf)//NG
Most analysts
expect Mexico’s trade policy under the Peña Nieto Administration to be relatively ¶ similar
to that of the Calderón government, albeit with a more aggressive emphasis on ¶ diversifying Mexico’s trade partners. President
Peña Nieto has put forth proposals for deepening ¶ North American integration (such as the
establishment of a North American infrastructure fund) ¶ and improving efficiency at the U.S.-Mexican
border. He also supports Mexico’s active ¶ participation in negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) trade agreement.34 At the same ¶ time, Peña Nieto has also vowed to bolster Mexico’s trade ties with China, Europe, and Latin ¶
America, including trade with the Pacific Alliance (Chile, Peru, and Colombia) and Brazil. ¶ In its legislative and oversight capacities, the 113th
Congress may face numerous issues related to ¶ trade that could affect U.S.-Mexican economic relations. For example, the
Obama
Administration ¶ has made the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement a top
trade priority. ¶ The United States, Canada, and Mexico, along with eight other countries,35 are participating in ¶ the TPP negotiations. If
implemented, the TPP potentially could eliminate tariff and non-tariff ¶ barriers to trade and investment
among the parties and could serve as a template for a future trade ¶ pact among Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) members and potentially other ¶ countries. If negotiations continue to move forward, they may affect the rules
governing North ¶ American trade that have been in effect since NAFTA entered into force.
NAFTA is not in danger – Nieto want to increase trade and Mexicans rely on it
CSM 12/3 (Luis Rubio, contributor to The Washington Post, WSJ, and The Los Angeles Times, PhD in
political science) “Enrique Peña Nieto's 'economy first' strategy for Mexico would also help US”
December 3. 2012 <http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/ 2012/1203/Enrique-Pena-Nietos-economy-first-strategy-for-Mexico-would-also-help-US>
The one thing Mexicans know is that Peña Nieto, who ran a formidable campaign, will be a very different kind of
president compared to his predecessor, Felipe Calderón, who focused on confronting the narco mafias, not realizing that security cannot be
an end in itself. Mr. Calderon focused on confronting the mafias and attempted to eradicate drug flows. Peña Nieto aims to
protect the population under the assumption that demand for drugs from the US is so strong that any attempt to eradicate will prove fruitless.¶
The new president’s message has been consistent: Mexicans want an effective government, one that
can address and resolve pending issues (mainly economic reforms) and deliver a more robust economy. He
does not dismiss the issue of violence – in fact, his proposal is to adopt a policing and judicial strategy rather than a military one. But his
focus is on steep economic growth, a strategy that necessarily must include peace for Mexico’s citizens.¶ Both issues are closely
related to the United States.¶ On the economic front, the connection is through trade. For Americans, the North American Free Trade
Agreement is one more trade pact, even if a highly politicized one. For Mexicans, NAFTA is the foremost source of
legal certainty for investors and companies in general. Mexico sought a trade agreement with the US essentially because it
was a way to “borrow” American institutions and legal certainties.
Fixing NAFTA courts wont help anything- Alt causes to NAFTA failure
Amadeo February 2, 2012 * resident of WorldMoneyWatch.com. She has 20 years senior-level experience in economic analysis and
business strategy working for major international corporations, author of Beyond the Great Recession: What Happened and How to Prosper¶
(Kimberly, “Disadvantages of NAFTA¶ ,”, ¶ http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm)//mw
NAFTA has many disadvantages. First and foremost, is that NAFTA made it possible for many U.S. manufacturers to move
jobs to lower-cost Mexico. The manufacturers that remained lowered wages to compete in those industries.¶ The second
disadvantage was that many of Mexico's
farmers were put out of business by U.S.-subsidized farm products.
NAFTA provisions for Mexican labor and environmental protection were not strong enough to prevent those
workers from being exploited.¶ U.S. Jobs Were Lost:¶ Since labor is cheaper in Mexico, many manufacturing industries
moved part of their production from high-cost U.S. states. Between 1994 and 2010, the U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaled $97.2 billion,
displacing 682,900 U.S. jobs. (However, 116,400 occurred after 2007, and could have been a result of the financial crisis.) Nearly 80% of the
losses were in manufacturing. California, New York, Michigan and Texas were hit the hardest because they had high concentrations of
the industries that moved plants to Mexico. These industries included motor vehicles, textiles, computers, and electrical
appliances. (Source: Economic Policy Institute, "The High Cost of Free Trade," May 3, 2011)¶ U.S. Wages Were Suppressed:¶ Not all
companies in these industries moved to Mexico. The ones that used the threat of moving during union organizing drives. When it became a
choice between joining the union or losing the factory, workers chose the factory. Without union support, the workers had little bargaining
power. This suppressed wage growth. Between 1993 and 1995, 50% of all companies in the industries that were moving to Mexico used the
threat of closing the factory. By 1999, that rate had grown to 65%.¶ Mexico's Farmers Were Put Out of Business:¶ Thanks to NAFTA, Mexico lost
1.3 million farm jobs. The 2002 Farm Bill subsidized U.S. agribusiness by as much as 40% of net farm income. When NAFTA
removed
tariffs, corn and other grains were exported to Mexico below cost. Rural Mexican farmers could not
compete. At the same time, Mexico reduced its subsidies to farmers from 33.2% of total farm income in 1990 to 13.2% in 2001. Most of
those subsidies went to Mexico's large farms, anyway.(Source: International Forum on Globalization, Exposing the Myth of Free Trade, February
25, 2003; The Economist, Tariffs and Tortillas, January 24, 2008)¶ Maquiladora Workers Were Exploited:¶ NAFTA expanded the maquiladora
program, in which U.S.-owned companies employed Mexican workers near the border to cheaply assemble products for export to the U.S. This
grew to 30% of Mexico's labor force. These workers have "no labor rights or health protections, workdays stretch out 12 hours or more, and if
you are a woman, you could be forced to take a pregnancy test when applying for a job," according to Continental Social Alliance. (Source:
Worldpress.org, Lessons of NAFTA, April 20, 2001)¶ Mexico's Environment Deteriorated:¶ In response to NAFTA competitive pressure,
Mexico agribusiness used more fertilizers and other chemicals, costing $36 billion per year in
pollution. Rural farmers expanded into more marginal land, resulting in deforestation at a rate of 630,000 hectares
per year. (Source: Carnegie Endowment, NAFTA's Promise and Reality, 2004)¶
Mexico’s Economy is resilient and independent of the US
The World Bank, 2013 (February 2013, http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mexico)//NG
Mexico, the second largest economy in Latin America, has remained resilient to the U.S. slowdown
and the financial turmoil from Europe. Although the country is closely integrated with the U.S.
industrial production sector and international capital markets; its strong fundamentals, sound policy
frameworks and management have resulted in favorable financial conditions that have supported
national economic activity.
xt NAFTA/Trade Resilient
US-Mexico Trade has increased and is ongoing in the status quo
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affiars, 12-(Published by Department of State, “US relations with Mexico”, published
on June 25, 2012, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm)//NG
Mexico is the United States’ second-largest export market (after Canada) and third-largest trading partner (after Canada and
China). Mexico's exports rely heavily on supplying the U.S. market, but the country has also sought to diversify its
export destinations. Nearly 80 percent of Mexico’s exports in 2011 went to the United States. In 2011, Mexico was the secondlargest supplier of oil to the United States. Top U.S. exports to Mexico include mechanical machinery, electronic equipment,
motor vehicle parts, mineral fuels and oils, and plastics. Trade matters are generally settled through direct negotiations
between the two countries or addressed via World Trade Organization or NAFTA formal dispute settlement procedures.¶
Mexican investment in the United States has grown by over 35 percent the past five years. It is the
seventh fastest growing investor country in the United States.¶ Mexico is a major recipient of remittances, sent
mostly from Mexicans in the United States. Remittances are a major source of foreign currency, totaling over $22.73 billion in
2011. Most remittances are used for immediate consumption -- food, housing, health care, education -- but some collective
remittances, sent from Mexican migrants in the U.S. to their community of origin, are used for shared projects and
infrastructure improvements under Mexico’s 3 for 1 program that matches contributions with federal, state and local funds.¶
Mexico is making progress in its intellectual property rights enforcement efforts, although piracy and counterfeiting rates
remain high. Mexico appeared on the Watch List in the 2012 Special 301 report. The U.S. continues to work with the
Mexican Government to implement its commitment to improving intellectual property protection.¶
US-Mexico Trade is Resilient- Mexico can’t afford to lose the US
Department of State, 10-(“US-Mexico: Trade and Investment at a Glance”, May 19, 2010,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/05/142020.htm)//NG
The United States is Mexico’s largest trading partner and largest foreign investor. Mexico is the third largest
U.S. trading partner after Canada and China, and is the U.S. second largest foreign supplier of petroleum. The U.S.-Mexico
border is one of the busiest, most economically important borders in the world, with nearly one million
legitimate travelers and nearly a billion dollars worth of goods legally crossing the border each day. Eighty
percent of this trade crosses the land border on trucks and trains. Border states are not the only ones that benefit from this
dynamic trade relationship--a total of 22 U.S. states have Mexico as the number one or number two destination for their
exports, including California, Iowa, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Tennessee and Wisconsin. Much of the U.S. trade with Mexico is in intermediate inputs, which are used to finish U.S. products.
The deep integration of the U.S. and Mexican economies has resulted in a cross-border production
system that enhances the competitiveness of both countries. To put this in perspective, Mexico and
the U.S. do as much business in just over a month as Mexico does with all 27 countries of the
European Union combined in a year.
NAFTA has had benefits and the countries will continue to commit to it
NAFTA Now 13 (site produced by the governments of the US, Mexico and Canada) “Results: North
Americans Are Better Off After 15 Years of NAFTA” 2013-05-06
<http://www.naftanow.org/results/default_en.asp>
NAFTA has proven that trade liberalization plays an important role in promoting transparency, economic
growth, and legal certainty. In the face of increased global competition, Canada, the United States, and Mexico will
work to strengthen the competitiveness of the North American region by continuing to pursue trade within
the NAFTA region. The three countries will also continue to expand trade with other regions. Additionally, Canada, Mexico, and the United
At the 2009 North American Leaders
Summit, our three countries agreed to reiterate our commitment to reinvigorate our trading
relationship and to ensure that the benefits of our economic relationship are widely shared and sustainable.
States share common challenges within North America that directly affect quality of life.
Nieto will pursue NAFTA with US leadership
Business Week 12 (Harold L. Sirkin staff writer) “Nafta: After 20 Years, We're Not There Yet” August 1, 2012
<http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-01/nafta-20-years-and-not-there-yet>
The United States must provide the leadership needed to integrate the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican
economies. With the Dec. 1 inauguration of Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, the U.S. will have an ally
in any such effort.¶ Writing in the New York Times in early July, Peña Nieto said that building on NAFTA and “further
integrating our economies” will be a priority for his administration.¶ Until the economies of the three
countries are better integrated, the full benefits of NAFTA will never be realized. We need to move ahead now.
NAFTA countries are still committed to the pact
New York Times 12 (JULIÁN AGUILAR, staff writer) “Twenty Years Later, Nafta Remains a Source of
Tension” December 7, 2012 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/twenty-years-later-naftaremains-a-source-of-tension.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0>
Nafta, which was enacted in 1994, eliminated existing tariffs on more than half of the exports from Mexico to the United States and
gradually phased out remaining tariffs between all member countries.¶ The pact has benefited all three members. In 2010, the
United States had $918 billion in two-way trade with Canada and Mexico, according to the office of Ron Kirk, United States trade
progress has come despite enhanced global security measures following the
economists and policy
makers celebrated Nafta’s success and brainstormed ways to build on it and bolster economic output. The
symposium concluded with a clear message: the future is wide open.¶ “We must continue to build upon Nafta and
think more as a region in order to be more competitive globally,” said Gerónimo Gutiérrez, the managing director of the North
American Development Bank, which was created by the governments of Mexico and the United States after Nafta’s inception and helps
representative.¶ Economists say that
Sept. 11 attacks and an eruption of drug-related violence in Mexico. During a recent symposium here,
finance and develop infrastructure projects on the border.
Nieto and Obama both want to continue NAFTA cooperation
Gabriel 12/10 (Dana, activist and independent researcher, writes about trade, globalization,
sovereignty, security, as well as other issues) “Beyond NAFTA: Shaping the Future of North American
Integration” December 10, 2012 <http://beyourownleader.blogspot.com/2012/12/beyond-naftashaping-future-of-north_10.html>
In a move that signalled the importance placed on the NAFTA partnership, Mexico’s new president visited
the U.S. and Canada before his inauguration. This was seen as a step forward in further strengthening political,
economic, energy and security ties between all three countries. Other recent high-level meetings and policy papers are also shaping the
future of North American integration. ¶ Before his recent trip to the U.S., Mexico’s new President Enrique Pena Nieto emphasized in a
Washington Post editorial the opportunity both countries have to build on their economic partnership. He
explained that, “in NAFTA we have a solid foundation to further integrate our economies through greater
investments in finance, infrastructure, manufacturing and energy.” As part of his government’s strategy to reduce violence, he stated that it is,
“important that our countries increase intelligence-sharing and crime-fighting techniques and promote cooperation among law enforcement
agencies.” In a White House press release, Pena Nieto invited President Barack Obama to participate in the next North American Leaders
Obama said that he was also
looking forward to finding ways, “to strengthen our economic ties, our trade ties, our coordination along the
Summit which will take place in Mexico sometime in 2013. With regards to U.S.-Mexico relations,
border, improving our joint competitiveness, as well as common security issues.”
The US and Mexico love NAFTA – many warrants
Strabroek News 5/8 (staff writer) “Obama in Mexico and Central America” MAY 8, 2013
<http://www.stabroeknews.com/2013/opinion/editorial/05/08/obama-in-mexico-and-central-america/>
All accounts of the discussions with the new President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, suggest that while Mr Obama and his team paid
significant attention to the question of the movement of narcotics from Mexico northwards to the United States, and from Mexico southwards
seemed to want to place almost equal, if
more, emphasis on the US’s trade and economic relationship with Mexico within the framework of the North American Free Trade
Area (NAFTA).¶ Clearly the President feels, and indeed indicated as much, that while the narcotics issue, in terms of its
being a major security, as well as a health and wellness issue, remains a significant priority, it must now rank with the
significance that the US attributes to the further development of Mexico in particular, as part of the NAFTA. This
sentiment also would appear to correspond firstly, to the views of the Mexican President who, both in his party’s election campaign
and on his ascent to office, has emphasized the importance of taking Mexico to a new level of economic
growth, placing the country on par with a country like Brazil in the Latin American arena.¶ Secondly Peña Nieto’s statements on narcotics
to the Central American states as alternative channels to the North American mainland, he
not
and related security issues in which the US has played a strong hand vis-à-vis Mexico over the last decade, also suggest that he would wish to
demonstrate that in the course of cooperation with the US, a Mexican government must not appear to be subordinate to American strategies.¶
the American president’s message has also been that he recognizes the changing balance of economic
power in the world, and the importance of sustaining the linkages of his country with others, in particular
Mexico next door, that can enhance the United States’ leadership and dominance of markets in the global economy, starting
A part of
with the hemisphere of which the US is a part and, in effect, leader. So the President, well aware of the challenge from the East, has sought to
remind the Mexicans that “the United States and Mexico have one of the largest economic relationships in the world, and that Mexico is the
as he put it, the US and Mexico have at this time “an historic
opportunity to foster even more cooperation, more trade, more jobs on both sides of the border.Ӧ Clearly, the United
States President is seeking to consolidate the NAFTA base that his country had originated, and to ensure the
hemispheric arena as a first base of American prosperity and underpinning of his country’s home ground. And in turn, President Peña
Nieto, obviously perceives the strength of its inescapable next door neighbour, and the NAFTA relationship,
as a significant base for his own country’s continuing economic expansion and ability to influence events in the
hemisphere.¶ Further, Peña Nieto must see the relationship, properly sustained from his Mexican end, as a leg on which it
can stand in terms of extending Mexico’s prominence and influence in South America. Mexico’s initiation of the
second largest market for United States exports.” And,
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), as a foundation of future influence as other Latin American states, in particular
Brazil, foray out into the wider economic world, has been yet another example of the country’s search for a substantial role in fashioning
hemispheric relations in their interconnections with the wider world. This action is therefore, in a sense complementary to Mexico’s recent
hosting, the first for a Latin American country, of the G20 in June last year.
Obama and Nieto will seek to deepen ties
ONiel 3/29 (Shannon K ONiel, senior fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, areas of expertise include
globalization, policy reform) “President Obama heads to Mexico for a meeting with Enrique Pena Nieto” April 29, 2013
http://www.voxxi.com/president-obama-heads-to-mexico/
As important as the sheer amount of trade, the agreement shaped the decisions of thousands of companies, including Texas-based Dell,
Pilgrim’s and Taylor Farms, companies that began making and growing things on both sides of the border to gain a competitive edge. Today, for
every manufactured product “made in Mexico,” on average, 38 percent was actually made in America by U.S. workers. These links far exceed
other nations—the comparison for China, Brazil and the European Union is 4 percent or less; for Canada, our other NAFTA partner, it is 25
percent. In this age of global supply chains, Mexico
is by far the best partner not just for U.S. companies but also
for their workers.¶ As Obama focuses on these ties, he will find an able and willing partner in Mexico.
Pena Nieto has prioritized economic reforms above all others, with a comprehensive and ambitious agenda to change
Mexico’s labor laws, education system, telecommunications and broadcasting, financial architecture, energy sector and taxes. This effort is led
by an aggressive and cohesive team consisting of the finance minister, foreign minister and commerce secretary, among others. It is also a
group with years of experience living in the United States, completing impressive degrees from MIT, Yale and Wharton
xt Mexico Econ Resilient
Mexico is resilient
Hall 13
[Peter G. Hall. Export Development Canada Knowledge Centre writer. Mexico’s
Resilience. http://www.edc.ca/EN/Knowledge-Centre/Subscriptions/WeeklyCommentary/Pages/mexico-resilience.aspx. 1/24/13. //SRSL]
Few economies escaped the global slowdown in the summer of 2012. Mexico was a rare and notable
exception. While marked deterioration in China, India and Brazil grabbed the headlines, Mexico
quietly hummed along, generating remarkably smooth growth. For an economy so tied to US
fortunes, that is quite an achievement. What is the secret of Mexico's success? GDP statistics tell the tale. India's growth
plunged from 8 per cent in mid-2011 to just under 3 per cent last summer. Brazil's long slide saw year-to-year increases tumble from 8 per cent
in mid 2010 to less than half of one percent in the second quarter of 2012. China's slowdown was less dramatic, sliding from 9 per cent at the
end of 2011 to 7.4 per cent by mid-2012 - but given that China's economy experiences serious dislocation at around 6 per cent growth, its dip
At the same time,
Mexico steadily generated quarterly growth in the 3.5-to-5 per cent range, with no discernable downtrend. True, the latest GDP figure is the weakest showing since the recession in 2009, but over the course of a year, growth fell by a mere 1
per cent, to a still-healthy 3.3 per cent. Among major emerging markets, only Russia showed similar resilience but in terms of net steadiness, Mexico still comes out on top. How do the numbers add up? Delving into Mexico's
was too close for comfort. Thankfully, the worst seems to be over, and these economies are now on the mend.
national accounts is revealing. Consumers were surprisingly resilient in the post-recession period, but they are currently less enthusiastic;
growth recently receded from the steady 4 per cent pace to just 2.2 per cent in the third quarter of 2012. Private investment saw an even
steeper decline. From an impressive 8-10 per cent pace, private construction registered a stunning 20 per cent year-on-year gain at the end of
2011 - only to see growth completely vanish by the summer of 2012. Similarly, private sector machinery and equipment investment accustomed to hefty double-digit increases - sunk to a year-on-year gain just shy of 4 per cent early last fall. So far, the Mexican economy
doesn't seem much different from the rest of the world. What is keeping its overall numbers afloat? Throughout 2012, the growing private
paper it seems too good to be
true, but the government's intervention couldn't have been better timed and the amounts could
hardly have been better calibrated. In the history of fiscal timing, it's probably one for the record
books. But the story doesn't end there. Notwithstanding the very recent lull, rising private investment speaks
to Mexico's ongoing success at attracting large amounts of foreign investment. Production arising from these
investment void was filled in by a surge of public investment - mostly construction projects. On
investments is boosting Mexico's exports, which over the past two years have outpaced import growth, yielding a decent net contribution to
the economy. That's something the other large emerging markets were not been able to say until very recently, and highlights the underlying
strength of the US economy, the main driver of Mexico's export success. Will Mexico's enviable record continue? The keen interest of foreign
investors in Mexico suggests that the slowdown of private investment is temporary - good news for the government, which can't afford to
offset private investment indefinitely. More importantly, the export potential that justifies foreign investments is strong, thanks to resurgent US
Mexico's recent growth run is impressive, and is set to
continue. Over the coming months, this market will be one to watch.
housing, consumer and corporate markets. The bottom line?
xt NAFTA Fails
The majority of NAFTA’s rules are non-binding which dooms it to fail
Hussain 13 – (Imtaiz Professor of International Relations at Universidad Iberoamericana) “Reevaluating NAFTA: Theory and Practice” 2013
pgs 64-65
As previously observed,
the side agreements emphasize recommendations and the NAFTA requirements.
The recommendations are nonbinding, though they do impose penalties. The requirements in
chapters XI and XIX, however, are binding. Chpater XX rulings/decisions remain nonbinding, but they
allow retaliation (which is very hard to expect, given not only NAFTA’s limited membership but also North America’s asymmetry).
NAFTA’s interesting handling of compliance could become a more widespread global feature; whereas
binding dispute-settlement rulings govern the chapters critical to NAFTA’s longevity (XI and XIX), nonbinding
ruling have been allocated to the two side agreements and Chapter XX (which is critical, since it involves interministerial meetings, but –
This could be another NAFTA value-added
contribution, since the exit-option goes beyond GATT/WTO provisions. Failure to follow through
could easily wreck the entire NAFTA project, and that this did not happen during the 15 NAFTA years suggests the apparent
drift away from NAFTA priorities after 2008 has less to do with internal dysfunction than other interests beckoning the three members. All
three mechanisms without binding ruling either carry penalties or permit retaliation: the Chapter XX
ministerial FTC is understandably not amenable to binding provision, while the two nonbinding sideagreement mechanisms carry lightweight penalties for noncompliance – that is, the enforcement
contain only on paper not as a deterrent.
probably because of this – was spared a sine qua non treatment).
a2 Plan Solves
Fixing NAFTA fails
Legrain, 8 (Phillipe, Journalism Fellow – German Marshall Fund, “Myths About the Treaty the Democrats Want to Trade In”, Washington
Post, 4-6, Lexis)
Not so. Any changes would require a lengthy and complex renegotiation with Canada and Mexico. As Canada's
prime minister, Stephen Harper, has pointed out, "Of course, if any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening [NAFTA],
we would have some things we would want to talk about as well." Just the
threat of pulling out of NAFTA would do some
damage, too. Far from boosting America's international reputation -- something all presidential candidates agree is important -- it
would fan fears that the United States is an unreliable ally and discourage foreign governments from
committing to future agreements with Washington. The slim chance of concluding the World Trade Organization's Doha
round of global trade talks would vanish. And if the next president wants, for instance, Mexico's help in dealing with immigration
reform and Canada's hand in combating terrorism, then blaming America's friendly neighbors for its perceived woes is hardly the way to start.
A2 US-Mexico Relations
1nc Relations
US-Mexico cooperation is inevitable – interdependency
Selee, 2012 - director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, which promotes dialogue
and understanding between the United States and Mexico
[Andrew, “How will PRI's win change the U.S.-Mexico relationship?”, CNN World, 7/2/12,
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/02/how-will-pris-win-change-the-u-s-mexicorelationship-not-much/]//GH
Mexico's elections have brought back the PRI, an authoritarian party that ruled Mexico for seven
decades. This possibility had worried many observers and politicians in the United States, and yet,
surprisingly, it will make little difference for the U.S.-Mexico relationship. This is largely a tribute to
how deeply interdependent the two countries are today , as well as the ways in which Mexican society
has evolved over the past two decades.¶ The PRI has been known in the past for its anti-American
rhetoric and distrust of the United States. However, circumstances over the past 20 years have
completely changed the relationship between the two countries. Mexico has developed a vibrant
export-oriented economy that is growing at a respectable 3-4% a year. Its major destination for exports
is, of course, the United States.¶ At the same time, Mexico's expanding economy has allowed it to
become the second destination for U.S. exports. States ranging from Texas to Nebraska, Michigan,
Tennessee and New Hampshire depend heavily on the trading relationship with Mexico. Indeed, the
growing Mexican economy is helping to fuel the expansion of jobs in these states in the midst of an
economic crisis at home. Policymakers in both countries have a vested interest in managing these
economic ties responsibly, and a new administration in Mexico is sure to make this a priority.¶ There
have also been suspicions that the PRI would renew its old ways in dealing with drug traffickers and
jettison the growing security cooperation relationship with the United States. This also seems unlikely to
happen, and the new government will almost certainly want to deepen cooperation against drug
traffickers. In the past, PRI governments "managed" the traffickers to keep them under control, and
scandals and allegations of relationships with cartels hound some former and current state PRI
governors.¶ However, the new government in Mexico has enormous incentives to tackle the violence
that has beset parts of the country, and it cannot do that without extensive intelligence sharing,
equipment and training from the U.S. government. We are likely to see cooperation against trafficking
organizations deepen in the coming years as the new government tries to get control of areas in the
north and along the coasts where criminal groups have established themselves. The main criminal
groups are now too big to be dealt with through negotiations and deals as the PRI did in the 1980s and
90s. Inevitably, the new government will have to continue outgoing President Felipe Calderon's policy of
confronting these groups, although it may find ways of prioritizing the protection of civilians in the
process.¶ Suspicions will, nonetheless, remain in the United States, as in much of Mexican society, about
the PRI's honesty and transparency. A party that ruled through corrupt bargains in the past is unlikely
to have been born again overnight. Indeed, the allegations of several creative means for vote buying by
the PRI during this election worries many that the old ways of doing business are alive and well still in
2012. But even here there is hope.¶ What has changed is not the PRI but Mexican society and the
challenges it faces. Mexicans today have become used to a flourishing democracy with competitive
elections, freedom of the press, and greater (if still imperfect) transparency in governance. Mexicans
expect politicians to be accountable, police to do their jobs well and courts to be independent. They are
often disappointed, to be sure, but their expectations have changed dramatically since the late 1990s
when Mexico's democratic process began. The PRI is, in the end, a party that wants legitimacy and to
show that it can govern in a democratic era. The new government is almost certain to continue reforms
to the courts, police and public services as a way of winning public trust.¶ The United States has a
substantial interest in seeing Mexico's democracy flourish, its security situation improve and its
economy grow. Making sure that we have a secure and prosperous neighbor next door, with solid
democratic institutions, will provide a buffer in an often hostile world and produce enormous tangible
benefits for U.S. workers who depend on exports to Mexico. Deepening our partnership with Mexico is
key to the future of U.S. security and prosperity. There will be legitimate doubts about the new
government in Mexico, but there will be even more pressing reasons to move forward in
strengthening the relationship with our neighbor next door.
Alt Causes to relations and econ—NAFTA can’t cure it all
Montealegre 13
[Oscar. Staff writer for the Diplomatic Courier. U.S-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor.
http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331. //SRSL]
It is not common knowledge that Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, behind Canada and China. Every day, at least a
Mexico is frequently negatively caricaturized, primarily with
images of migrants illegally crossing the border into the U.S. and stealing U.S. jobs. Instead of viewing Mexico
as a valuable partner that can benefit the U.S. in many facets, it is perceived as a liability, a region that cultivates
corruption and violence and is the root of the current U.S. immigration ‘problem’ that has spurred
controversial rogue measures like Arizona’s SB 1070.¶ In matters of foreign policy, Mexico is an
afterthought—our attention and resources are diverted to the Middle East or to grand strategies
based on ‘pivoting’ our geopolitical and economical capacity towards Asia. With the U.S. economy performing at
billion dollars of goods flows across the border. Yet,
a snail-like pace, an emphasis on exports has re-emerged, but the bulk of the exporting narrative revolves around Asia. This is unfortunate,
because our neighbor to the south has quietly positioned itself to be the next jewel in the emerging markets portfolio.¶ For example, Market
Watch (a Wall Street Journal subsidiary) recently published a bullish article on Mexico with the following headline: “Mexico: Investor’s New
China”. The Economist published an opinion piece titled “The Global Mexican: Mexico is open for business”, highlighting Mexican companies
that are investing locally and in the U.S. and arguing that Mexico is fertile ground for more investment, especially in the manufacturing sector.
And according to The Financial Times, BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are no longer the flavor of the month; Mexico is now
taking over that distinction.¶ In
essence, immigration and the drug trade will no longer anchor the relationship
between the U.S. and Mexico; instead, economics, finance, trade, and commerce will dictate the
terms between the neighboring countries.¶ However, in order to move forward, undoubtedly the elephant in the room must
be addressed promptly. Immigration—although the topic is polarizing, it is imperative that President Obama tackles this issue steadfastly and in
the most bi-partisan manner possible. It can be seen as one-sided that the onus is on the U.S., while Mexico gets carte blanche in its
contradictory policy with their border patrol methods towards Central American migrants entering through Guatemala. True, but when you are
world’s super power, not all is fair in love and war.¶ Fortifying borders, beefing up security, creating walls that divide the two countries that
mimic uncomfortable parallels between Israel and Palestine should not be the main focus. With the world becoming more flat, the emphasis in
tackling the immigration quagmire should be trade and commerce. Engagement, interaction, and the exchange of ideas should be the picture
we want to paint. We should not foster the argument that an open border policy and a global business paradigm will compromise American
jobs and bite into our distinctive American competitiveness.¶ The reason Mexicans cross the border illegally into the U.S. is because of one
desire: opportunity. If Mexico develops a lasting robust economy, Mexicans will no longer desire to come to the U.S. in such droves. According
to Nelson Balido, President of the Border Trade Alliance, this already occurring: “Mexico’s economy has, for the most part, weathered the
worst of the economic downturn, meaning that more young Mexicans can reasonably seek and find work in their patria rather than heading
north.Ӧ A strong American economy is extremely favorable for Mexico. Turn the tables a bit, and ponder what it means for the U.S. when a
Mexican economy is robust and stable—more export possibilities for the U.S.; more investment from the U.S. to Mexico, and vice versa,
creating a win-win situation. Less need for Mexicans to leave their homeland and look for jobs in the U.S.¶ Sounds familiar? The
characteristics of many vibrant emerging markets such as China, Indonesia, Brazil, and India, are occurring right next door. Why go East when
we can venture South? Or perhaps, approach both simultaneously. According to a Nomura Equity Research report, Mexico in the next decade
will surpass Brazil in being Latin America’s largest economy. When comparing Mexico on a GDP per capita basis, Mexico happens to be less
developed than Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. This might sound negative, but in actuality it should be music to investors’ ears: more catching up
for Mexico, meaning more investment and business activity.¶ Moreover, Mexico’s economy is highly interconnected with the U.S. economy.
Currently, Mexico sends almost 80 percent of its exports to the U.S., and roughly 50 percent of its imports are from the U.S. Manufacturing
costs in Mexico are once again competitive compared to China. Ten years ago, China’s labor costs were four times cheaper than Mexico, but
with labor wages in China inflating, Mexico now has a comparative advantage because its proximity to the U.S. Shipping cargo across the Pacific
can be more expensive and arduous, versus trucking cargo from northern Mexico and delivering to Wisconsin in a matter of days.¶ However if
the U.S. administration continues to close the borders, the exchange of commerce between Mexico and the U.S. will suffer due to setbacks of
just getting goods to cross the border. Luckily,
NAFTA is already in place, but both parties (and Canada) can do
more to cut red tape and streamline the movement of trade and commerce.¶ Currently, Mexico is entering a
perfect demographic storm. It has a young and growing population, which is expected to last for several decades. Mexico is no longer only
looking north for economic advancement, as many of their multinational companies, such as Bimbo and Cemex, are currently doing business in
Latin America and Spain. Mexico’s stock market is currently in talks to integrate their stock exchange with the MILA group—the established
stock exchanges between Colombia, Peru, and Chile. The U.S. must act soon before it arrives at the party too late. It is in the U.S.’s interests to
have Mexico think northward first, and then the other regions second, but the opposite is developing.¶ The interconnectedness between both
countries strongly conveys why the dialogue should revolve around bilateral trade and commerce agendas. For Mexico, 30 percent of GDP is
dependent on exports, and 80 percent of exports are tagged to the U.S. Most importantly, one of ten Mexicans lives in the U.S., accounting for
nearly 12 million Mexicans that consider the U.S. their current residence. Add in their descendants, and approximately 33 million Mexicans and
Mexican-Americans reside in the U.S. Let’s put this figure in perspective: Venezuela has a population of 29 million; Greece, 11 million; and
Essentially we have a ‘country’ within a country—the beauty of America—but it must
be embraced instead of shunned or ignored. Economically, it is a plus for Mexico, because there is a
market for Mexican products; it is also a plus for the U.S. in many areas, including soft power,
diversity, direct linkages to Mexico and Latin America. A cadre of American-born and educated human capital are able to
Canada, 34 million.
cross cultures into Mexico and Latin America to conduct business and politics.¶ The presidential election emphasized that Latinos in the U.S.
are now a vital demographic when concerning local, Congressional, and Presidential elections. It makes practical sense for the U.S. (regardless
of political party) to consider Mexico the front door to Central and South America. The most recent U.S. Census discovered that the Latino
population in the United States: 1) now tops 50 million; 2) has accounted for more than half of America’s 23.7 million population increase in the
last decade; 3) grew by 43 percent in the last decade; and 4) now accounts for about 1 out of 6 Americans. Latinos are now the largest minority
group in the United States. These are extraordinary figures that should be leveraged into something positive. ¶ President Obama cannot respond
by merely paying lip service to the Latino community. Latino voters have overwhelmingly backed President Obama for two elections now, but
no favor is done with complete altruism. Surprisingly, during President Obama’s first term, there were 30 percent more deportations than
during George W. Bush’s second term. Yet there is hope that President Obama will fix the broken system with a more humane approach,
contrary to laws that are being pushed and backed by the Republican Party in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. Some may ask—what does this
have to do with Mexico, or even Latin America? It is all about messages, and in the next four years the President must use the available tools to
solidify relationships with its partners, paving the road for more trade and commerce, which ultimately will further strengthen the U.S.
economy. What happens in the U.S. means a lot to many countries, and immigration is perhaps one of the most important matters in Mexico,
Central, and South America.¶ The U.S. must first focus on re-branding its relationship with Mexico. President Obama and Mexican President
Peña Nieto need to formulate a new agenda between the two countries—one that resonates with the 21st century, linking the two countries
economically; where the U.S. can envision Mexico as a vibrant emerging market in its own backyard.
Obstacles do exist, like the
current Mexican drug war and political corruption. But don’t India and China have corruption problems as well?
xt US-Mexico Relations Resilient
Border sharing makes US- Mexico trade relations strong
Althaus, 12 (Dudley, bureau chief at houston chronicle “US-Mexico Trade Rebounding” 08/02/12
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/U-S-Mexico-trade-rebounding-3758252.php) //ST
MEXICO CITY — U.S.-Mexico commerce has recovered from the Great Recession and reclaimed
opportunities lost a decade ago to China, but it remains stifled by transportation bottlenecks, criminal
violence, corruption and other challenges, experts at a border trade conference agreed Thursday. “The
trade relationship between the United States and Mexico is not just coming back — it's coming back
strong,” Anthony Wayne, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, told several hundred trade professionals
gathered in Mexico City. “But the increase in bilateral trade also brings with it a new set of challenges
our two countries must be prepared to address.” Sharing both a border and time zones with the United
States, Mexico holds a distinct advantage for U.S. companies over Chinese and other Asia operations
in both the speed and cost of shipping as well as communications between factories and home offices.
“Being close to markets is critical for all manufacturers, in that sense Mexico has become much more
competitive than it used to be,” said Luis Sada, a vice president of business development for FINSA,
which operates industrial parks in cities bordering South Texas. “China has become much a less
competitive opportunity or option for manufacturers.”
Mexico’s concerns with the courts don’t prevent US-Mexico cooperation
Brown, 12 (Neil—former Senior Professional Staff Member at Committee on Foreign Relations, United
States Senate, and current senior adviser at Goldwyn Global Strategies, 12/21/12, “Oil, Mexico, and the
Transboundary Agreement : a minority staff report prepared for the use of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, second session, December 21, 2012,”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-112SPRT77567/pdf/CPRT-112SPRT77567.pdf
U.S.-Mexico bilateral cooperation has improved dramatically in the last 5 years. Mexican sensitivities
regarding their sovereignty are still present in government dealings. But today they don’t prevent
bilateral cooperation, as they did in the recent past. As evidence in this regard, we have seen a significant
increase in Mexico’s efforts to institutionalize and even expand cooperation among both civilian and
military officials. The willingness to improve Mexican cooperation with the United States is partly due
to the trust developed through the successful partnership the U.S. and Mexican governments have
built while working against drug trafficking organizations. The $1.9 billion Mérida Initiative through which the United
States provides equipment, training, and technical assistance to support the Mexican government’s battle against the narcotics trade and
transnational crime has created a platform for greater bilateral cooperation. Today, our two nations work closer than ever before. Yet, there
are still new areas in which the bilateral relationship should improve. Interlocutors both from the then-existing Calderón administration and
senior advisers to then-incoming Peña Nieto administration expressed a similar desire to expand cooperation in the bilateral relationship. One
senior member of the then-incoming Peña Nieto administration expressed that it is time to move
beyond tourism and drugs, issues which are so prominent in the bilateral agenda today. Of course, the
development of a contemporary, comprehensive immigration policy ranks high when broadening the
agenda is discussed. The U.S. is well positioned to increase dialogue and cooperation on energy
security with Mexico (included in renewable power and efficiency, which were not part of this review, but which are areas where
cooperation can move forward without significant political obstacles from the Mexican side).
xt Alt Cause
Security/communications issue threatens US-Mexico relations.
Castillo, 2013 - News Desk Editor at CNN for Latin America, Columbia SIPA alumnus
[Mariano, “Security dominates talk of U.S.-Mexico relations”, CNN, 5/2/13,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/world/americas/mexico-us-relations]//GH
Ahead of their meetings in Mexico City this week, President Obama and Mexican President Enrique
Peña Nieto hinted that they wanted to put economic ties atop their agenda.¶ But reports that Mexico
is restructuring the way it cooperates with American officials on security matters -- in essence
restricting communication -- threaten to impose a shadow over the positive economic story the
leaders want to tell. ¶ The apparent friction highlights the critical security relationship and illustrates
the complexities of U.S.-Mexico relations.¶ "We spend so much time on security issues between the
United States and Mexico that sometimes I think we forget this is a massive trading partner, responsible
for huge amounts of commerce and huge numbers of jobs on both sides of the border," Obama said this
week.¶ But writing a new narrative on U.S.-Mexico relations that doesn't lead with Mexico as a major
transit point for narcotics, or the United States as a market hungry for the drugs, isn't easy.¶ That was
made clear by the spate of news reports this week on both sides of the border about changes to how
Mexico cooperates with the Americans.¶ Under the new rules, all U.S. requests for collaboration with
Mexican agencies will flow through a single office, Interior Minister Miguel Angel Osorio Chong
confirmed to Mexico's state-run Notimex news agency.¶ It is a drastic change from recent years, when
U.S. agents enjoyed widespread access to their Mexican counterparts.¶ So in the days leading up to
Obama's arrival in the Mexican capital, the buzz was not about the economy, but whether Mexico was
being uncooperative with the United States.¶ Osorio Chong downplayed the idea that the change
signified a retreat in security cooperation.¶ The United States "should have the confidence that things
are on a good path," he told Notimex.¶ In a conference call with reporters, Obama administration official
Ben Rhodes said it was natural that Peña Nieto, who has been in office for only five months, would want
to revisit its security structure.¶ "We're currently working with the Mexicans to evaluate the means by
which we cooperate, the means by which we provide assistance, and we're certainly open to discussing
with Mexico ways to improve and enhance cooperation, streamline the provision of assistance," said
Rhodes, who is the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. "Our goal is not to
have a certain amount of presence in terms of security efforts in Mexico; it's to cooperate with the
Mexicans so that we can meet the interests of both our countries."¶ But analysts say impact of the
changes should not be underestimated .¶ U.S. officials who had built rapport and personal relationships
with Mexican counterparts now have an obstacle to their communication, said George Grayson, an
expert on Mexican security issues and professor of government at the College of William & Mary.¶
"The door is not wide-open like it used to be," he said.¶ There is a lot to boast of on the economic front,
but security will likely remain a key part of how U.S.-Mexico relations will be judged. ¶ Among U.S.
officials, there is an unspoken concern about whether Peña Nieto will merely give lip service to the idea
of security cooperation or whether he will provide real substance, said David Shirk, former director of
the Trans-Border Institute in San Diego.¶ "I've talked to many people at very high levels that have
expressed these concerns," Shirk said. "There is a kind of wait-and-see attitude. I think U.S. officials want
to give Peña Nieto the benefit of the doubt."¶ What is clear is that Peña Nieto rejects the "kingpin"
strategy of his predecessor, Felipe Calderon, who made the capture of cartel leaders the centerpiece of
his security plan.¶ A number of high-ranking drug cartel leaders were killed or captured during Calderon's
term, but the results usually backfired -- new leaders rose in their place, rival cartels fought for the
leftovers and a high level of violence persisted.¶ Peña Nieto has talked about focusing on violence
reduction, and engaging in educational, social and economic reforms. But this broad vision has not yet
produced a defined security strategy.¶ "The question is, what (do) you replace the kingpin strategy
with?" Grayson said.¶ The changes to protocols between U.S. and Mexican officials are likely part of
the process to figure that out, but one that could rankle the United States, said Tony Payan, a Mexico
expert and fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. ¶ The previous
strategy of identifying kingpins and going after them suited the United States, which has the tools and
capabilities to aid in those operations, Payan said. A more hands-off approach may not go over well.¶
"Clearly, there is disagreement on how to approach this issue," he said.¶ When Obama and Peña Nieto
speak publicly together on Thursday and Friday, their economies will be the easy things to talk about,
Payan said. Half a billion dollars in trade is indeed something to brag about, and is a storyline that has
been overlooked too often.¶ Obama and Peña Nieto are expected to trumpet these achievements to the
press.¶ "I think the ugly part of the conversation (about security) will be in private," Payan said.
The drug fight must be solved to prevent further severs in US-Mexican relations.
Archibold et al, 2013 - the New York Times bureau chief for Mexico, Central America and the
Caribbean, based in Mexico City
[Randal, “Mexico’s Curbs on U.S. Role in Drug Fight Spark Friction”, The New York Times, 4/30/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-between-us-and-mexico-threatensefforts-on-drugs.html?pagewanted=all]//GH
MEXICO CITY — In their joint fight against drug traffickers, the United States and Mexico have forged an unusually close relationship in recent
years, with the Americans regularly conducting polygraph tests on elite Mexican security officials to root out anyone who had been corrupted.¶
But shortly after Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, took
office in December, American agents got a clear message that the
dynamics, with Washington holding the clear upper hand, were about to change.¶ “So do we get to polygraph you?” one incoming
Mexican official asked his American counterparts, alarming United States security officials who consider the vetting of the Mexicans central to
tracking down drug kingpins. The
Mexican government briefly stopped its vetted officials from cooperating in
sensitive investigations. The Americans are waiting to see if Mexico allows polygraphs when assigning new members to units, a senior
Obama administration official said.¶ In another clash, American security officials were recently asked to leave an
important intelligence center in Monterrey, where they had worked side by side with an array of Mexican military and police
commanders collecting and analyzing tips and intelligence on drug gangs. The Mexicans, scoffing at the notion of Americans’ having so much
contact with different agencies, questioned the value of the center and made clear that they would put tighter
reins on the sharing
of drug intelligence.¶ There have long been political sensitivities in Mexico over allowing too much
American involvement. But the recent policy changes have rattled American officials used to far fewer restrictions than they have
faced in years.¶ Asked about security cooperation with Mexico at a news conference on Tuesday, President Obama said: “We’ve made great
strides in the coordination and cooperation between our two governments over the last several years. But my suspicion is, is that things can be
improved.”¶ Mr. Obama suggested that many of Mexico’s changes “had to do with refinements and improvements in terms of how Mexican
authorities work with each other, how they coordinate more effectively, and it has less to do with how they’re dealing with us, per se.” He
added, “So I’m not going to yet judge how this will alter the relationship between the United States and Mexico until I’ve heard directly from
them to see what exactly are they trying to accomplish.Ӧ Mr. Obama is scheduled to visit Mexico on Thursday and Friday on a mission publicly
intended to broaden economic ties.¶ But behind the scenes, the Americans are coming to grips with a scaling back of the level of coordination
that existed during the presidency of Felipe Calderón, which included American drones flying deep into Mexican territory and American spy
technology helping to track high-level suspects.¶ In an interview, Mexico’s interior minister, Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong, made no apologies. He
defended the moves, including the creation of a “one-stop window” in his department to screen and handle all intelligence, in the name of
efficiency and “a new phase” in fighting crime.¶ In a country worn down by tens of thousands of people killed in a drug war, he said Mexico
needed to emphasize smart intelligence over the militarized “combating violence with more violence” approach of the Calderón years.¶ But
American officials here see the changes as a way to minimize American involvement and manage the image of the violence, rather than
confronting it with clear strategies.¶ The
lack of certainty over Mexico’s plans and commitment has jeopardized
new security assistance from the United States. Plans to release $246 million, the latest installment of a $1.9 billion
anticrime package known as the Merida initiative, have been held up by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. His office has been
waiting for months for more details from the State Department and the Mexican government on how the money would be spent and what it
might accomplish.¶ A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to provide a more candid assessment, said a recent
visit by Mr. Osorio Chong to Washington helped calm some fears. A delegation of Mexican officials is also expected to visit in the coming weeks
to explain the country’s plans to members of Congress.¶ But there is growing anxiety that the violence has not diminished, with daily killings
hovering around 50 since last fall. Some American officials say they are increasingly worried by public and private signs suggesting that Mr.
Peña
Nieto , the young face of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which ran Mexico for 71 years, is putting the government’s
crime-fighting image above its actions. ¶ “The cosmetics — that’s what they care about,” one American official said, insisting on
anonymity so as not to worsen already tense relations.¶ “The impression they seem to want to send is ‘We got this,’ ” one former American
official said, asking for anonymity because he was discussing private conversations. “But it’s clear to us, no, they don’t. Not yet.”¶ A senior
administration official, asked for a sign of progress or a recent accomplishment in security matters, struggled with the question until pointing to
the extradition to the United States of a few men on drug charges, conceding they were not big fish. Other extradition requests appear stalled;
there were 155 last year, mostly for drug offenses, the highest in nearly a decade.¶ Tuesday evening, less than 48 hours before Mr. Obama’s
arrival and with mounting questions on whether Mexico would go after kingpins, Mexico announced it had captured Inés Coronel, the father-inlaw of the most-wanted capo, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, known as El Chapo. It was unclear if the United States played a role in the arrest. ¶ If so, it
would represent a step beyond the Mexican discomfort with Americans operating on their turf that emerged in December, just after Mr. Peña
Nieto’s inauguration. It solidified after an explosion on Jan. 31 at the office complex of the state oil company, Pemex, in which 37 people died
and more than 120 were injured.¶ Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were invited to help investigate. But
after they suggested in a preliminary assessment that a bomb might have caused the blast, the agency’s role in the investigation was cut short,
American officials said, adding that Mexican officials canceled a visit by a team of investigators from the United States.¶ An administration
official said that while American explosives experts were not allowed to contribute as much as they could have to the investigation, creating a
sense that the Mexicans were rushing to conclude that the blast was an accident.¶ On Feb. 4, the attorney general of Mexico announced that
the cause was an unexplained buildup of gas, possibly methane, that was ignited by a spark in the basement of one of the buildings.¶ The
American ambassador was invited to the news conference on the findings, but a State Department official said the level of American
involvement in the investigation did not warrant the ambassador’s presence. With the American agents leaving the cooperative center in
Monterrey, which was first reported by The Washington Post on Sunday, and the development of the one-stop intelligence mechanism, the
United States is worried and is seeking more information.¶ “We’re still figuring out what that means,” a senior administration official said of the
new intelligence arrangement.¶ But the fear is that it will diminish the access that American law enforcement and intelligence agencies have
Those hard-fought relationships could disintegrate if
American agents have to go through a central office to communicate and share knowledge with their
Mexican counterparts, some American officials say.
established with branches of the Mexican police and military.
xt US Econ Resilient
US economy is resilient
CNBC 13
[Economy section. Soaring Consumer Confidence Points to US Resilience. May 28, 2013.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100768979. //SRSL]
U.S. consumer confidence strengthened in May to the highest level in more than five years, suggesting
Americans' attitudes were resilient in the face of belt-tightening in Washington, a private sector
report showed on Tuesday. The Conference Board, an industry group, said its index of consumer attitudes jumped to 76.2 from an
upwardly revised 69 in April, topping economists' expectations for 71. It was the best level since February 2008. April was originally reported as
68.1. After dropping in March, it was the second month in a row confidence has improved. Sentiment had been hit by debates in Washington
surrounding fiscal policy, as well as the expiration of the payroll tax holiday at the beginning of the year. "Back-to-back
monthly
gains suggest that consumer confidence is on the mend and may be regaining the traction it lost due
to the fiscal cliff, payroll tax hike and sequester," Lynn Franco, director of economic indicators at The Conference Board,
said in a statement. The expectations index rose to 82.4 from 74.3, while the present situation index climbed to 66.7 from 61. Consumers'
labor market assessment improved. The "jobs hard to get" index slipped to 36.1 percent from 36.9
percent the month before, while the "jobs plentiful" index gained to 10.8 percent from 9.7 percent.
Consumers also felt better about price increases, with expectations for inflation in the coming 12
months falling to 5.3 percent from 5.5 percent.
A2 Mexican Ag
Farmers are Resilient
CIMMYT 12
[International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. Mexican Farmers Durable Despite
Free- Trade Shocks. May 14, 2012. http://www.cimmyt.org/en/news-andupdates/item/mexican-farmers-durable-despite-free-trade-shocks. //SRSL]
A new study from CIMMYT describes some of the effects of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) on Mexican maize and wheat farmers, and their creative and resilient responses.
NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994. Among other things, it stipulated the elimination of tariffs on most basic crops in Mexico, Canada, and
the United States With support from the Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellows Program of the US Congressional Hunger Center, former
CIMMYT research affiliate Amanda King has published a study that addresses the effects of NAFTA on farmers in two very different Mexican
agricultural areas. Her study examined Mexico’s northern Yaqui Valley, a high-productivity wheat farming zone, and small-scale, low-input
The report reviews recent literature regarding
NAFTA impacts on maize and wheat farming in Mexico, and provides an overview of maize and wheat
production, a characterization of the country’s farming households, and circumstances leading up to
and following NAFTA. It closes with the case studies mentioned above, and conclusions and
recommendations. The results suggest that cooperation and diversification have helped some Mexican farmers cope with economic
producers of maize in two areas of Veracruz State, southeastern Mexico.
changes under NAFTA, despite economic crises and inadequate institutional support. Out-migration to large cities or to the USA has continued
to increase steadily, but commercial maize production is going through a resurgence in the southern part of coastal Veracruz state, and farmers
. “Throughout the state,” says
King, “farmers have increasingly turned toward cooperation and collaboration as tools to survive and
even thrive in conditions of economic upheaval. Whereas the Mexican government expected NAFTA
reforms to restructure and remove small-farmers from the agricultural sector, coping with the new
conditions of agricultural production has ironically made many of these farmers stronger and more
willing to fight to be considered a part of Mexico’s economic future.” Results from the Yaqui Valley case study
in northern Veracruz are capitalizing on new export opportunities involving the sale of maize husks
suggests that, even in areas considered favored in terms of economic and environmental resources, farmers have had difficulty making the
livelihood transitions necessary to participate in international trade. The report is intended for researchers and policy-makers interested in the
themes of trade liberalization, agricultural production, and social welfare. “Mexico’s experience with NAFTA can provide lessons for other
countries seeking to support a development agenda within the framework of trade liberalization,” says King.
A2 corporate governance
1nc corporate governance
No Impact to Corporate Power- Corporations are becoming Socially Responsible
CQ Press, 07- (Published by CQ press, a division of C0gressional Quarterly Inc., Published on August 3, 2007, Title“Corporate Social Responsibility”,
http://library.cqpress.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?file=cqr20070803C.pdf)//NG
For the Coca-Cola Co., a predicted global water crisis is “a strategic threat to our business,” because
water is the company’s most important raw material, says Jeff Seabright, Coke’s vice president for
environment and water. “Climate change is going to stress this even fur- ther,” he adds. As result, he says, Coke
advances its business interests by con- serving water at its plants, helping communities manage their
watersheds better and reducing the company’s contribution to global warming.¶ Wal-Mart follows
advice from environmental organizations to reduce its waste of materials and energy , then helps its
suppliers do the same, says Marc Major of Blu Skye Sustainability, a Wal-Mart consultant in Healdsburg, Calif. After
that, Major continues, the giant retailer tells the suppliers: “You cut your energy bills, so you can cut the cost of the
products you sell to us.”
Corporate power doesn’t cause extinction
National Post 04
(Jonathon Kay, “An Anti-corporate snuff film”, February 6, L/N)
The central theme of The Corporation is that, because corporations are treated as "persons" for legal purposes, their
behaviour should be judged by the psychological standards we apply to individuals. And since corporations are driven
primarily by profits -- as opposed to real-life people, who respond to a range of motives -- this makes them not just greedy,
but "psychopathic." It's not clear to me why the Sundance judges -- or anyone else -- found this idea so clever. No one disputes that the
raison d'etre of a corporation is to make money by satisfying market demand. Is it really such a profound insight that an entity established to
pursue a single purpose ... pursues a single purpose? If this monomania makes corporations "psychopathic," then so are charities (who ever
heard of an entirely selfless life form?), NGOs, armies, firefighters, the Boy Scouts and just about every collective entity ever created for a set
purpose. But logic doesn't matter here. What drives this film is blind anti-capitalist hate. Sit through this movie's two-and-a-half hours and
you'll be told that the modern corporation is "imperialist," "fascistic" and "narcissistic"; and that it
resembles a "monster," Frankenstein, a shark, a whale, an eagle, an "unaccountable tyranny" and "a doom machine" -- whatever
that is. In addition, corporations were apparently responsible for the Holocaust and, in our own time, an "overwhelming epidemic of
cancer." The Corporation's creators even found someone to say that business types cheered on 9/11. Meanwhile, when the
directors feel compelled to give lip service to the actual economic function of corporations -feeding the world, giving jobs to billions of people, inventing medicines, creating wealth, making
stuff people want, etc. -- they resort to stock footage from corny postwar educational videos, cartoons and newsreels: little Tommy
explaining how capitalism works to his classmates, etc. It's a clever trick. You can make any idea appear stupid -- even the most successful
economic ideology in history -- by putting its precepts in the mouth of some 1950s-era Leave it to Beaver type. Since Terence Corcoran of the
Financial Post has already taken a good run at The Corporation's various other flaws, I won't list them here. But I do think it's worth asking why
intelligent people are lining up to praise what is essentially a paranoid anti-corporate snuff film, one that treats capitalism with the same level
of insight and sophistication as Reefer Madness did marijuana. The phenomenon goes to the evolution of left-wing thought itself. In another
age, when Marxism was still a going concern, propagandists of the left dedicated themselves to earnest portrayals of workers' paradises in
Russia and Cuba. With
the demise of the Soviet Union, that brand of propaganda went extinct, and the
focus shifted to the caustic, satirical strain that demonized corporate capitalism while proposing
nothing by way of alternative. It is this strain that animates not only Moore, Achbar, Bakan and
their fans, but also Naomi Klein and the other doyennes of the anti-globalization movement. And
in the end, that's what I found the most telling thing about The Corporation: Despite interviewing every left-wing icon
under the sun -- from Noam Chomsky to Howard Zinn to Ms. Klein -- the directors can't offer their viewers a
serious vision for what should replace the capitalist system they so fervently despise. The closest
they come is a scholar who rhapsodizes about the communal land ownership system enjoyed by
medieval peasants. Plagues? Feudal oppression? Mass starvation? In the la-la land inhabited by
The Corporation's brain trust, none of these blights compare to the "doom machine" created by
Nike, Monsanto and Disney. Now that's psychopathic.
NAFTA itself is anti-democratic – changing the courts doesn’t fix that, and legitimizing
them only makes it worse
Atik 03 (Jeffery Atik, AB, with distinction, University of California Berkeley, “Repenser NAFTA Chapter 11:
A Catalogue of Legitimacy Critiques”, 10/24/03,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=470141##)
NAFTA is said to suffer a democratic deficit. As an international undertaking, the various commitments
were negotiated by the executive of each country, with only limited popular input. Opinion polls in
Canada consistently show a lack of public support in many provinces for Canada’s participation in the
NAFTA.14 Mexico’s adhesion was determined by the autocratic decision of then President Salinas; the
PRI-dominated Congress of the time applied merely a rubber stamp.15 In the United States, opposition
to NAFTA was deep and vocal. The “fast track” mechanism has been assailed for stripping Congress of
its ordinary and appropriate role in the making of such far-reaching and relatively permanent policy
determinations.16 Interpretation of the NAFTA’s terms and obligations has been entrusted to
anonymous tribunal and panel members. These bodies – Chapter 11 tribunals and Chapter 19 and
Chapter 20 panels – suffer the democratic infirmities of a relatively unchecked juridical body;17 they
attract a warmed-over critique inspired by Bickel’s LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH.18 There is little or no
chance for political reversals of their decisions – absent an unlikely and destabilizing effort to
renegotiate the NAFTA treaties. The hierarchical positioning of NAFTA dispute settlement organs, and
their distance from national political checks, make their existence – and their every exercise of
decision – of questionable legitimacy.
xt no impact
Corporations want to be more socially responsible- pressure from the public and
congress and is key to competitveness
CQ Press, 07- (Published by CQ press, a division of C0gressional Quarterly Inc., Published on August 3, 2007, Title“Corporate Social Responsibility”,
http://library.cqpress.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?file=cqr20070803C.pdf)//NG
Even most critics concede that corporate social responsibility is likely to be around for the long term .
Busi- ness executives, activists and scholars expect companies to become more ef- fective at it and for more
companies to join the movement. Some activists hope — and conservatives fear — that Congress will require
companies to meet certain corporate responsibility standards. “Corporations will still employ the
language of social responsibility to seek competitive advantage and to protect themselves from
political risk,” the John Locke Foundation’s Hood says. “That is a basic behavior in modern corporate life. We
shouldn’t expect it to go away.” Cypress Semiconductor’s Rodgers spec- ulates companies “will drift slowly
toward more involvement” as the country be- comes wealthier. “As we get richer — which we are because
we’re competitive — there’s more money in total for us to spend, and that means there’s more money to
spend on good causes.”¶ Hopkins of the Business Round-¶ table expects companies “will get a lot smarter, better
at assessing oppor- tunities and risks and doing smart strategic planning.” ¶ Nike’s Jones predicts the public will
continually raise its expectations for responsible corporate behavior. At the same time, she adds,
“you’ll increa ingly see brands differentiating themselves from the competition through corporate
responsibility.” Companies will move beyond “mit- igating problems” toward “making positive
contributions,” according to G.E.’s Corcoran.¶ Scott Johnson of SC Johnson and Tar- get’s Garvis anticipate
more creativity.¶ “Companies will be looking for new ways to do it,” Johnson explains. They¶ will become
adept at “understanding need gaps and filling them,” he says.¶ “It’s not just about giving money away any more,”
Garvis says. “It’s about giving your skill sets away, or your creativity.” ¶ A widespread goal and expectation is
that companies will integrate social responsibility throughout their basic business operations. “In 10
years you may not even be talking about it, because it will just be business,” Corcoran says.¶ Johnson
looks to the time when corporate responsibility is part of every executive’s job description and
performance evaluation.
xt no solvency
The plan can’t solve – strategic concerns inevitably intervene
Henckels 2012 – University of Cambridge, Social Science Research Network (Caroline, “BALANCING INVESTMENT
PROTETION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST: THE ROLE OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFERENCE IN
INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2192389 Dec 31 2012//SRM)
More broadly, it has also been argued that NAFTA tribunals are at times motivated by strategic
concerns in adopting a particular standard of review.28 In Loewen v. U.S., the tribunal referred to the
viability of NAFTA, appearing to accept that states’ continued support was critical to maintaining the
regime.29 In Glamis v. U.S, the tribunal referred to the NAFTA parties’ ‘indefinite commitment to the
deepening of their economic relations’ and remarked that ‘the long-term maintenance of this
commitment requires both governmental and public faith in the integrity of the process of
arbitration.’30 This strategic approach to the standard of review is also evident in the practice of other
courts and tribunals such as the ECtHR.31 It may be that these strategic concerns may have influenced
NAFTA tribunals’ approach to deference. The NAFTA context may be distinguished from other
investment treaties, which do not contain similar mechanisms to issue interpretations of the relevant
obligations. Additionally, the investment chapter of NAFTA is situated within a broader project of
regional economic integration, and it seems unlikely that this systemic imperative would influence
tribunals’ decision-making under most other bilateral investment treaties.32 But despite these
institutional differences, we also see references to deference in non-NAFTA decisions. These tribunals
have also explicitly affirmed the right to regulate and the need to avoid second- guessing government
policy, demonstrating an understanding of the desirability of deference in certain circumstances.33
However, this approach is not uniform. Several investment tribunals have adopted a strict approach to
the standard of review, most notably the first tranche of claims against Argentina in relation to its
economic crisis of 1999-2001. The CMS v. Argentina, Enron v. Argentina and Sempra v. Argentina
decisions are well-known for their stringent scrutiny of Argentina’s emergency measures in the context
of both fair and equitable treatment and the applicability of the non-precluded measures (‘NPM’) clause
in the Argentina-US investment treaty.34 Other tribunals have adopted a non-deferential approach to
their review of conduct of Argentine provincial authorities in relation to the crisis.35 Outside of the
Argentine context, other tribunals have applied strict scrutiny in the context of host state decisions
relating to environmental protection,36 or have dismissed pleas for deference by host states.37
A2 Solvency
1nc Squo Solves
Effective and enforceable dispute resolution in US/Mexico now
SCAFF’07 -B.A., The University of Texas at Austin in Economics- [Peter Scaff, Effective and enforceable
dispute resolution in US/Mexican commercial trade, Lexology, October 25,207, 07-01-13]
In transactions between U.S. and Mexican parties, the benefits of considering the likely scenarios to
be encountered in the event of a subsequent dispute are heightened. If for no other reason than
because both countries favor the process, arbitration is the recommended dispute resolution method.
Mexico’s embrace of international law and international arbitration has led to the development of an
infrastructure of experienced arbitrators and arbitration institutions within Mexico, and to the extent that
enforcement and collection concerns also can be ameliorated by doing so, U.S. entities and their lawyers should be less hesitant to choose
Mexico as the place for arbitration.
xt courts Not Key
Arbitration is successful without the plan – tomato trade war
PALMER ’13 [Doug Palmer Tomato Deal Reached Between U.S., Mexico, Averting Trade War,
Huffington Post, Feb. 02, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/03/tomato-deal-us-mexicotrade-war_n_2608565.html, 06-30-13]
The U.S. government and Mexican tomato growers reached a tentative agreement on
Saturday that reduces the threat of a costly trade war stemming from a U.S. decision
last year to pull out of a 1996 bilateral tomato trade pact. "I am pleased that we were
able to come to an agreement on fresh tomato imports from Mexico that restores
stability and confidence to the U.S. tomato market and meets the requirements of U.S.
law,"€� U.S. Commerce Under Secretary for International Trade Francisco Sanchez said
in a statement. The draft agreement substantially raises the minimum "reference" price
at which Mexican plum, cherry and other tomatoes can be sold in the United States and
accounts for changes that have occurred in the tomato market since the original
agreement, Sanchez said. For some Mexican tomatoes, the new reference price is more
than
double the current such price, Sanchez said. The deal is expected to take effect on
March 4, after a public comment period, he said. Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso
Guajardo said the deal guaranteed Mexican farmers access to the U.S. market under
conditions that were "fair and competitive." "We worked hand in hand with Mexican
producers on this agreement to avoid damage to the sector," he said.
Mexico and U.S. can resolve disputes buy themselves- Court isn’t key
STROM’13 [Stephanie Strom, M.D. from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism national
correspondent for New York Times, United Sates and Mexico Reach Tomato Deal, Averting a Trade War,
New York Times, Feb. 3,2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/business/united-states-andmexico-reach-deal-on-tomato-imports.html?_r=0, 06-30-13]
The United States and Mexico have reached a tentative agreement on cross-border trade in tomatoes,
narrowly averting a trade war that threatened to engulf a swath of American businesses. The
agreement, reached late Saturday, raises the minimum sales price for Mexican tomatoes in the United
States, aims to strengthen compliance and enforcement, and increases the types of tomatoes governed
by the bilateral pact to four from one. “The draft agreement raises reference prices substantially, in
some cases more than double the current reference price for certain products, and accounts for changes
that have occurred in the tomato market since the signing of the original agreement,” Francisco J.
Sánchez, the United States under secretary of commerce for international trade, said in a statement.
Court reform is not necessary to dispute resolution
AP Press September 27, 2012 * article quoting Commerce Department of USfg and Mexico’s
government¶ (“Tomato Trade Agreement With Mexico May Be Squashed By U.S.,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/29/us-mexico-tomato-trade-deal_n_1926056.html)//MW
WASHINGTON -- The Commerce Department on Thursday indicated it may side with Florida tomato growers and squash
a 16year-old trade agreement with Mexico.¶ The move would allow U.S. growers to seek anti-dumping duties on
imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. Tomato growers in Florida have sought to have the
agreement ended, arguing that it is outdated and that Mexican imports are crippling the domestic industry.¶ Mexico's government says
such a move would damage its trade relations with the United States, its partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement. It said the
country's trade in tomatoes with the United States was worth over $1.8 billion in 2011.¶ The Commerce Department said it will make a final
determination on the future of the tomato agreement in no later than 270 days.¶ Mexican
tomato growers had sought a
meeting last month to find a "mutually satisfactory" solution to the tomato issue, the country's Economy
Department said Thursday.¶ "The Economy Department expresses its deep concern over the negative impact this preliminary decision could
have on our bilateral trade relationship."¶ It noted that ending the agreement would lead to higher prices for U.S. consumers.¶ The decision is
"inconsistent with the position expressed in the past, that the agreement is in the (U.S.) public interest."
1nc WTO solves
WTO adjudication solves – NAFTA is too slow
Gantz, 99- Professor of Law, Director of International Trade Program at University of Arizona (Gantz, David A. "Dispute
Settlement Under the NAFTA and the WTO: Choice of Forum Opportunities and Risks for the NAFTA Parties." American
University International Law Review 14, no. 4 (1999): 1025-1106.,
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1328&context=auilr)//NG
While the NAFTA Chapter 20 and WTO DSU procedures signifi- cantly differ as written, both processes are still evolving, and the ac- tual
differences in some cases are more apparent than real, as indi- cated above. Moreover, the WTO is undertaking a "review" process which may
result in changes to the WTO system that make it more effective.3"6 No similar review is contemplated with regard to Chapter 20, although, if
and when a permanent roster is appointed by the NAFTA Parties, some of the delays relating to
selection of panelists may be reduced. The most significant procedural considerations are summarized as follows: Delays in
the process are probably less likely in the WTO than under Chapter 20, due to the existence of an
independent secretariat and a mechanism for choosing panelists from a permanent roster, de- spite the
existence of an appeal. As long as there is no permanent NAFTA roster, a Party has some control over the
proceedings simply by drawing out the selection process, including, but not limited to, the fifth arbitrator, who
traditionally has not been a North American national, and for which there is no mandatory choice mechanism. Thus, a NAFTA Party
that wishes to go slow initially-perhaps in the hope that the matter may be settled-may wish to
encourage dis- pute resolution under Chapter 20 rather than at the WTO, where it is more difficult for a Party to
delay the initial proceedings.¶ 2. In practice, panel decisions are equally binding, with one ex- ception. The NAFTA lacks a detailed
mechanism for implementation and lacks provisions to encourage the Parties to comply within a
reasonable time. However, the defacto adoption of a fifteen-month pe- riod for WTO compliance means that NAFTA results are likely to
be implemented more rapidly, since retaliation thirty days after the final report is permitted, and there are fewer restraints on retaliation than
in the WTO. Thus, a NAFTA Party that is reasonably sure of its legal case and will be satisfied with self-help trade retaliation measures may well
prefer Chapter 20. With
"nullification or impairment" cases, the NAFTA mechanism is preferable, because
decisions based on nullification or impairment of benefits are of the same binding nature as those
related to violations of NAFTA provisions. In con- trast, nullification or impairment claims are subject
to different rules under the WTO DSB.
xt WTO Solves
WTO’s system is more centralized – NAFTA adjudication just creates confusion
Hufbauer and Schott 5 (Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Peterson Institute for International Economics and Jeffrey J. Schott, Peterson
Institute for International Economics) “NAFTA Revisited Achievements and Challenges” October 2005 pg. 215
Perhaps the biggest difference is that the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) creates a
single, integrated dispute resolution system for almost all Uruguay Round texts. This avoids potential
procedural controversies when a dispute overlaps the boundaries between trade in goods, services,
and intellectual property. By contrast, NAFTA contains several adjudication systems and standards of
review. Chapter 11 panels are instructed to evaluate claims against the minimum norms set forth in
the NAFTA text. Chapter 19 panels are instructed to apply the domestic law of the importing NAFTA
party to review administrative determinations in trade remedy cases. NAFTA’s Chapter 20 establishes a
political interstate dispute resolution mechanism, drawing on both NAFTA and international law.
NAFTA’s multiple dispute settlement methods decrease efficiency and enforcement of
decisions
Hufbauer and Schott 5 (Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Peterson Institute for International Economics and Jeffrey J. Schott, Peterson
Institute for International Economics) “NAFTA Revisited Achievements and Challenges” October 2005 pg. 221
Notable differences exist between the WTO and NAFTA institutional mechanisms for encouraging
member countries to accept dispute settlement decisions. WTO adoption of Appellate Body decisions
is virtually automatic, since a “reverse consensus” of member countries is required to overturn a
decision of the Appellate Body. If disputing parties cannot agree upon mutually acceptable
compensation within 20 days, the complaining party can retaliate by requesting that the DSB
authorize the suspension of WTO obligations in an amount equivalent to the value of its impaired
WTO trade rights (DSU Article 22). WTO dispute settlement procedures seldom lead to compensation
settlements, so retaliation is the final recourse when countries that violate their WTO obligations do
not comply with panel rulings (Anderson 2002). While WTO decisions are ultimately backed up by
compensation or retaliation, according to the DSU text, “neither compensation nor suspension of
concessions or other obligations is preferred to full implementation of a recommendation to bring a
measure into conformity with the covered agreements” (DSU Article 22). By comparison with the
streamlined WTO system for encouraging compliance, the NAFTA works along several tracks.
xt regional Courts Solve
Non-NAFTA regional dispute mechanisms solve
Beeton 2013 – International Communications Director for the Center for Economic and Policy Research; former
associate director for Citizens Trade Campaign; former employee of Center for Economic Justice. (Dan, “ALBA
MEMBERS TAKE THE LEAD IN CRAFTING ALTERNATIVES TO ARBITRATING INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTES”, Friday May
3 2013 8:43, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/alba-members-take-the-lead-in-craftingalternatives-in-arbitrating-investor-state-disputes //SRM)
Khor describes the proposed new arbitration center: The ministers decided to set up an executive
committee, initially led by Ecuador to coordinate political and legal actions including sending
information on legal disputes involving the states, coordinating joint legal actions and disseminating
information to the public. They also agreed to establish a regional arbitration centre for settling
investment disputes, based on fair and balanced rules when settling disputes between corporations
and States. The proposed centre is to provide an alternative to existing international tribunals which
are seen as biased in favour of investors’ interests. Khor also notes significant conflicts of interest
among ICSID arbitrators: The tribunals, such as ICSID (based at the World Bank in Washington), have
also been accused of being mired in conflict of interest situations. Only a few arbitrators hear a
majority of cases, with many of them also appearing as lawyers for companies in other cases, and
some being board members of transnational companies. Indeed, a 2007 paper [PDF] by Sara Anderson
of the Institute for Policy Studies and Sara Grusky of Food and Water Watch found that investors
prevailed in 36 percent of ICSID disputes, and 34 percent were settled out of court with compensation
to the investor. ICSID and other investor-state dispute hearings have also been highly secretive; only
two out of 255 cases filed by November 2006 had allowed public attendance. In only four cases were
third parties allowed to file amicus curiae briefs. Corporations have also gained tremendous power to
sue governments through trade and investment agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA. The proposed
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) – which died in 2005 at a Mar del Plata summit amid strong
resistance from Brazil, Argentina and other countries – also would have included such provisions.
According to Khor, it was such investor-state disputes which prompted the Latin American and
Caribbean governments to hold the meeting: The meeting had been prompted by serious concerns
arising from investment cases taken by transnational companies against the governments under
bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements that enable these companies to sue for loss of
future profits due. For example, to new government regulations or a cancellation or amendment of a
contract. There have been more than 500 known investor-to-state cases, 60 alone in 2012. Some
countries in the region, such as Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela and Mexico each had 20 to 30 cases
taken against them.
DA Links
Politics – Link
Obama faces opposition in expanding US free trade.
Raum, 2013 – covers articles in politics, economics, and world confusion for The
Associated Press in the Washington bureau, working since 1973
[Tom, “OBAMA TRADE DILEMMA: SCANT SUPPORT FROM DEMOCRATS”, Associated
Press, 6/15/13, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-trade-dilemma-scant-supportdemocrats]//GH
Obama is promoting free-trade proposals with Europe and Asia that could affect up to two-thirds of all
global trade.¶ The ambitious deals would reduce or eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers. But there's
trouble ahead for both the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership — at the negotiating table and from Congress .¶ The deal with Europe will be a top item this
coming week in Northern Ireland at the Group of Eight summit of major industrial democracies. But
French and other objections have recently surfaced which could delay the planned launch of the
negotiations.¶ The Asia pact was brought up pointedly by the new Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in his
California meetings with Obama last weekend.¶ Republicans historically have supported free-trade
agreements far more than have Democrats, and a politically weakened Obama may not have enough
second-term clout to successfully twist the arms of enough Democratic lawmakers.¶ Some Republicans
who usually vote for easing trade barriers may vote "no" just because the agreements will bear Obama's
signature.¶ Both deals generally have the support of U.S. businesses. But labor unions and human rights
and environmental groups — core Democratic constituencies — have so far viewed them cynically.¶
These organizations, and Democrats in general, say that free-trade deals can cost American jobs and
lead to environmental and workplace abuses that would not be tolerated in the U.S. ¶ "We certainly
have concerns," said Celeste Drake, a trade and policy specialist at the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor
federation. "I think Obama realizes this problem about Republicans always being the big supporters (on
trade liberalization) and he would like to have our support. But overall we're skeptical. We wish we'd
see more."¶ It's not a new problem.¶ President Bill Clinton powered the U.S.-Mexico-Canada North
American Free Trade Agreement through Congress in 1993 only by heavily courting Republicans and
overcoming stiff Democratic opposition, including from House Democratic leaders and unions.¶ As he
campaigned for president in 2008, Obama courted blue-collar votes by criticizing NAFTA. Since then,
he's changed his tune.¶ Obama worked to overcome Democratic resistance to win passage in 2011 of
trade pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, completing negotiations begun by his Republican
predecessor, President George W. Bush.¶ The talks for a new Asia-Pacific free-trade zone came up in the
Obama-Xi meetings last weekend.¶ At first, the deliberations involved the United States and 10 Pacific
Rim nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and
Vietnam. More recently, Japan has sought to join the talks, drawing the keen interest of the Chinese
leader. Until now, China hasn't been included in the process.¶ "We have a half-a-trillion-dollar-a-year
trade relationship with China," said Tom Donilon, Obama's national security adviser. "President Xi's
point ... was that the Chinese would like to be kept informed and have some transparency into the
process."¶ But the possible inclusion of Japan, the third-largest economy, after the U.S. and China,
generated heat from auto-state lawmakers, who criticized Japan's efforts to restrict auto imports.¶ Sen.
Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., pledged to fight ratification if Japan won't "stop blocking American
companies from its markets."¶ Michael Froman, a White House international economics adviser
nominated to be the next U.S. trade representative, said the auto industry concerns are "well-founded"
and he suggested they would be addressed.¶ Backers of a sweeping U.S. trade deal with the 27 European
Union countries hoped to get an enthusiastic sendoff from the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland on
Monday and Tuesday.¶ British Prime Minister David Cameron, the host, has made trade liberalization a
priority, and many European nations are hoping the promise of expanded trade will help reverse
Europe's spreading recessions.¶ "An EU-US trade deal could add tens of billions to our economies,"
Cameron told reporters. "Everything is on the table, with no exception."¶ But there already are serious
divisions in Europe.¶ Despite Cameron's and Obama's assertions that everything should be on the table,
the European Union Parliament bowed to strong French concerns and recently voted to exclude TV,
movies and other cultural "audiovisual services" from the trade talks even before formal negotiations
begin next month.¶ France stuck to this "cultural exception" at a meeting of the EU members in
Luxembourg on Friday.¶ Also, some members of the European Parliament are urging that data protection
provisions be made a key part of the negotiations — in response to recent disclosures of widespread
snooping by the U.S. intelligence community on telephone and Internet communications at home and
abroad.¶ Other potential roadblocks include longstanding arguments over genetically engineered food
and other agricultural issues, as well as "Buy American" provisions in recent U.S. legislation, climate
change and a squabble over government subsidies involving plane makers Boeing in the U.S. and Airbus
in Europe.¶ "Both sides know that they need to work very hard," said Philipp Rosler, vice chancellor of
Germany and minister of economics and technology.¶ "And only if the people understand that, and only
if we don't end up just having discussions on tiny details — like chickens — only then will we have the
opportunity of not only negotiating, but also of concluding a good agreement," Rosler told a conference
at the Brookings Institution, a U.S. think tank.¶ Obama, with the backing of Michigan Rep. Dave Camp,
the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is also pushing for renewal of an
expired law that allowed the White House to submit trade deals to Congress for a straight yes-or-no
vote without amendments.¶ "This is a Congress that's pro-trade. But it's also highly polarized ," said
James Thurber, a political science professor at American University. "Business has been pushing these
trade deals for a long time. Labor has not. So that splits things in a difficult manner for Obama."¶ "He's
got people who don't want him to win on anything. And then he's got some people from labor who are
skeptical about expansionistic trade policies and their effect on the workforce here," Thurber said. "So
it will be tough."
Free trade is unpopular, costing Obama a lot of PC to push it.
Lessa November 8, 2010 *Managing editor of the International Affairs Review, Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA),
Public Affairs for UNICA’s office in Washington, D.C., Government Affairs Coordinator at the American Chamber of Commerce (Amcham), BA in
International Relations from Fundação Armando Alvares Penteado (FAAP)¶ (Ana Carolina, “Light at the End of the Midterm: More Free Trade
Ahead?,” http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/226)//MW
Nearly one week after the Democrats suffered the biggest House defeat since the 1938 midterms, President Barack Obama has headed to Asia
with an entourage of 500 people, mostly business executives, to participate in the G20 summit. Several issues will be addressed, including
cooperation on defense, nuclear issues and education. But, the major purpose of the trip is to promote a policy to which the Obama
administration has not paid much attention: free
trade.¶ The timing is significant. Despite its weakened economic state,
Americans have never been more opposed to free trade than now. According to a September NBC News/Wall Street
Journal poll, 69 percent of Americans believe free trade agreements with other countries have cost jobs in the United States, while 53 percent
see free trade agreements in general as being harmful for the country.¶ According to the same poll, 65 percent of union members and 61
percent of right-leaning Tea Party sympathizers believe free trade has hurt the U.S. With this kind of broad skepticism across the political
spectrum, it may come as no surprise that both
parties ran ads against free trade during this midterm cycle. Most
of these ads attacked China, like those of Zack Space, a Democrat congressman from Ohio who accused his opponent of favoring
policies that send U.S. jobs to China, and Spike Maynard, a Republican challenger in West Virginia, who accused his opponent of favoring free
trade with the country. Who can forget the infamous “China’s going to take us over” ad by the non-partisan, conservative group Citizens
Against Government Waste?¶ Perhaps reflecting the national sentiment, the White House has shown no clear interest in liberalizing trade
policy. The Obama administration has not even sought fast-track negotiating authority (also known as Trade Promotion Authority), a tool
granting authority to the Executive branch to negotiate and write trade agreements without the consent of Congress. This instrument has been
cherished by U.S. presidents for the past 30 years.¶ Even the current U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Ron Kirk, has poorly advocated for freetrade generally conceding to labor unions and their Democratic allies by erecting tariff and non-tariff barriers, such as the imposition of a tariff
on Chinese tires in 2009 and the hinting at the possibility of more trade protection to the U.S. steel industry this year. Without strong
free
trade sentiment in Congress, there has been little push for any of the trade agreements that are
currently pending, such as those with South Korea, Panama and Colombia.¶ The agreement with Korea, for example, has been pending
since 2007 due to heated opposition from U.S. automakers. They claimed the deal would not open the Korean auto market to U.S. products.
However, at the same time the U.S. auto industry hangs with all their might to their own 25 percent import tax on SUVs and other light trucks
coming from South Korea.¶ Though Obama campaigned on an anti-free-trade platform, in the wake of a significant
midterm loss the President will be touting free trade – something most congressional Democrats oppose – during his trip to Asia. Why the
change in policy direction?¶ The South Korean trade agreement holds part of the answer. In March of this year, a Korean ship, the Cheonan,
was sunk by a North Korean torpedo, killing 46 sailors. Suddenly, trade relations with South Korea became an important foreign policy matter,
to help demonstrate U.S. support for South Korea. In June, Obama declared that the U.S. would delay its handover of wartime control of South
Korean forces to South Korea by three years, till 2015. In a further show of support, he also stated that he would lobby the U.S. Congress to
ratify the trade agreement. Over one hundred House members were furious with the President’s declaration and warned that the agreement
would not be signed without significant rewritings to certain sections, including investment policy, labor and environmental standards.¶ The
chances of passing the Korean free trade agreement will be higher in the new Congress, since Republicans are historically more favorable
towards trade. But free
trade is unpopular among Democrats and Tea Party activists, an important and
vocal GOP constituency, so it is unclear if this legislation would face a tough battle on Capitol Hill. If passage of this agreement is
important for the administration, this could be a chance for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to lead Obama to a major congressional victory.
Despite being an anti-free-trader, Secretary Clinton could pressure Congress to ratify the agreement by escalating it to a national security
issue.¶ It is still too soon to tell what direction this administration will take regarding trade, but something about this trip that seems to signal a
directional change for free trade agreements. Pushing the South Korea agreement toward ratification would send a positive signal to all of Asia,
and probably the rest of the world, that the United States is ready to engage in trade once again.
NAFTA promises changed over deep controversy
Medrano, 10 (Juan Diez-Institut Barcelona d'Estudis Internacionals, 11/1/10, “Divergent Reactions to
Globalization: Labor Unions and the NAFTA and the EU Enlargement Process,”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1710500, JMP)
The NAFTA was conceived to deal with trade issues. Only deep controversy over the US Congress’s
extension of fast-track authority forced the Bush Administration to finally promise that the agreement
would speak to these issues. The final draft fell short of labor and environmental groups’ expectations, however, and when Clinton
succeeded Bush the prospects for Congress approval were dismal. It is in this context that the new President, encouraged by
environmental groups’ representatives, offered to negotiate labor and environmental sideagreements (Kay, 2005). The labor side-agreement (North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation or NAALC), just like NAFTA, is an
intergovernmental institution, as those who drafted it were careful to emphasize. It does not harmonize labor legislation, nor does it impose
one country’s law and regulations on other countries. Furthermore, the agreement retains the NAFTA’s main spirit, which is economic and
neoliberal. There
is no concession to the language of social justice and embedded liberalism.
Politics – 2nc Immigration Turns Case
Solving immigration reform is beneficial to US and Mexican trade.
Powell, 13 - Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute; Director of the Free Market Institute at Texas
Tech University
[Benjamin, “Immigration Reform -- The Time for Free Trade”, Huffington Post, 6/16/13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-powell/immigration-reform-the-ti_1_b_3451173.html]//GH
Consideration of the "gang of eight" proposal in the U.S. Senate has rekindled the national discussion
about immigration reform and it's high time that this discussion emphasizes a thorough understanding
of the economic case for free trade in labor.¶ A cursory understanding of recent history demonstrates
that relatively free trade has lifted great masses of people out of poverty worldwide. The United
States boasts a long record of relatively free trade and has always benefited from being essentially one
big "free trade zone" internally. Goods and services, capital, and labor all move without governmental
restriction throughout the nearly four million square miles of the United States.¶ Interference with the
free flow of trade has always occurred along the arbitrary lines politicians have drawn on the map.
During the 19th century, tariffs and other barriers restricted international trade in goods and services.
However, for the most part, labor was free to enter or leave the United States. Following World War I,
the federal government enacted a series of laws restricting immigration. The interwar years also witnessed
significant restrictions on trade in goods and services.¶ Trade barriers for goods and services have fallen considerably since the establishment
of general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) in 1947. Support for free trade in goods and services commands more consent among
economists than virtually any other issue. In fact, free trade has been a core issue for economists ever since Adam Smith's 1776 publication of
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.¶ The basic case for free trade builds upon the fact that different people, in
different places, have different abilities to produce goods and services. If governments allow them to trade freely, market forces will naturally
push each person (and country) to produce those goods and services that they can produce at the lowest cost and import those goods and
services that they could only produce at greater expense. As a result, market exchange creates a greater amount of total wealth than would
occur in the absence of such exchange.¶ Substitute labor mobility for the mobility of goods and services and the process works in a very similar
fashion. Given their abilities, interests and costs, each laborer moves to where they can create relatively more value for others. If capital,
natural resources, and goods and services, were all perfectly mobile labor mobility wouldn't be as economically important as it is.¶
Unfortunately, some governmental barriers to trade in goods and capital flows remain, some services must be provided in-person, and, by
definition, many natural resources are in a fixed position. Thus, labor mobility remains crucial for our prosperity. In fact, increasing labor
mobility greatly dwarfs the gains that could be achieved through further removal barriers to capital flows and trade in goods and services.¶
Economist Michael Clemens has documented that completely eliminating world-wide barriers to
immigration would result in net gains of $30 to $90 trillion for the world economy (50 to 150 percent
of world GDP). On the same token, removing the remaining barriers to capital flows and trade would
only add a few percentage points to world GDP. Even a smaller migration of five percent of people
from poorer parts to wealthier parts of the world would exceed the wealth gains that could be had by
eliminating remaining trade and capital flow barriers.¶ Internally, the United States harnesses market
forces to determine optimal interstate migration. I recently moved from Massachusetts to Texas. I
weighed the value I could create in Texas (measured by the salary I was offered) against the value I
could create in Massachusetts, while also considering cost of living differences and other factors. Market
forces dictated that I could, on net, create more value in Texas. No government planning or quota
system was necessary to make this determination.¶ Market forces are necessary to coordinate the
international labor market as well. Increasing the number of H-1B visa's or temporary work permits is a
small step in the right direction but governments can no better plan the international labor market than
the Soviets could plan their markets.¶ People are, of course, different than goods and services because
they can influence politics or use existing public policy to transfer resources away from others and to
themselves. These issues are beyond the scope of the basic economic case for immigration, but I
believe, as Independent Institute Senior Fellow and author Alvaro Vargas Llosa suggests in his new
book, Global Crossings: Immigration, Civilization, and America, are largely problems of existing
interventionist public policy rather than problems of immigrants themselves . ¶ Conservatives who
support free trade in goods and services, but oppose greater migration, and liberals who support
immigration but oppose free trade, both need to understand that the economic case for free trade in
both labor and in goods and services is essentially the same. Freeing markets in both areas will make
the world, and the United States, wealthier.
Midterms
Supporting free trade is super unpopular
DUSTIN ENSINGER JUNE 17, 2011 Free Trade: Unpopular Among Most, Profitable for Few
http://economyincrisis.org/content/free-trade-unpopular-among-most-profitable-few
America’s failed trade policies and broken campaign finance system are inextricably linked. That much
is proved by the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose those policies; members of both
major parties are forging ahead on a trio of stalled trade pacts.
The average American has come to realize that North American Free Trade Agreement style trade
pacts do nothing more than lead to the loss of millions of jobs and enrich a few multinational
corporations in the process.
A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from last year found that 69 percent of Americans believe that
free trade agreements have cost America jobs. Just 18 percent believe that those agreements have
created jobs.
A majority of Americans – 53 percent – believe that free trade has hurt the nation overall. That’s up
from just 46 percent in 2007 and 30 percent in 1999.
Election 2012: U.S. Polling Shows Strong Opposition to Current U.S. Trade Agreement
Model by Independents, GOP and Democrats Alike
Public Citizen ’12 Public Citizen is a non-profit advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., with a
branch in Austin, Texas..
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=183
The 2012 U.S. elections featured a bipartisan race to align campaign positions with the U.S. public’s
opposition to status-quo trade policies. Recent polling indicates that U.S. public opinion has
intensified from broad opposition to overwhelming opposition to NAFTA-style trade deals among
independents, GOP and Democrats, with deep concern about China trade also uniting Americans across
party lines.
China DA
NAFTA trades off with China’s influence in Mexico
Wharton University Mar 20, 2013 *bimonthly publication that offers the latest business insights, and information and research
from various sources
(NAFTA’s ‘Uninvited Guest’: Why China’s Path to U.S. manufacturing Runs Through Mexico,
http://www.wharton.universia.net/index.cfm?fa=viewArticle&id=2324&language=english)//MW
Throughout Latin America, imports of Chinese steel are surging. In October 2012 alone, for example, Chinese
steelmakers exported US$3.515 billion worth of steel products to Latin America. According to a joint study recently undertaken by the steel
associations of Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Argentina, Chinese steel exports to Latin America “have grown in a significant way, so
that they now threaten the value chain of the industry.Ӧ Nowhere has that threat become more an issue than in Mexico. According to
Canacero, the Mexican steel manufacturers association, Mexican imports of rolled sheets from China rose 140.6%, year-on-year, between
January and November 2012. “A
considerable volume of the total of Mexican steel imports comes from
countries with which Mexico has no free-trade agreements, and which practice unfair trade practices,
such as China, Russia and Ukraine,” according to a statement by Canacero, which has filed anti-dumping charges against Chinese
steelmakers on more than one occasion.¶ Why are Chinese steel exporters so attracted to Mexico? Does their expansion into Mexico portend
that Chinese automakers will soon be assembling some of their own vehicles in Mexico, and exporting some of that output to the United
States? Or will the
Chinese be tempted to build their own automotive assembly plants in the U.S. in order to take advantage of
trade preferences offered by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? In what ways are China’s trade and investment
relationships with Mexico different from its ties with other emerging Latin American countries, such as Brazil and Colombia?¶ The Unique
Factors in Mexico-China Ties¶ Opportunities for Chinese steel manufacturers in Mexico have been expanding because of strong demand for
steel in the Mexican automotive sector. Companies such as Honda, GM, Nissan and Ford all operate plants in Mexico whose output is largely
exported to the United States. Fausto Cuevas Mesa, director of the Mexican automotive industry association (AMIA), predicted recently that
the output of the Mexican auto sector will continue to grow over the next five years at an annual pace of 8% to 10%, reaching 3.9 million units
by 2016. Mexican automotive output was projected to reach 2.86 million in 2012, according to LMC Automotive, a research firm, because of
strong demand for vehicles in the United States.¶ In September, luxury automaker Audi announced it will build a US$1.3 billion plant in Puebla,
its first production facility in the Americas. Most of Mexico’s auto output is exported to its NAFTA partners, the United States and Canada. Only
990,000 to 1 million locally assembled vehicles were sold in Mexico in 2012, said Cuevas Mesa -- slightly higher than in 2011. Cuevas Mesa
predicted that in coming years at least three more auto assemblers could come to Mexico, not just from Germany. ¶ Will any of those
additional automakers be coming from China? During the administration of former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Mexico
and
China announced that they were about to become “strategic partners.” But the meaning of their emerging
partnership was only vaguely defined, notes Margaret Myers, director of the China-Latin America program of the Inter-American Dialogue, a
non-profit policy research center in Washington, D.C.¶ For Chinese exporters of steel and other industrial inputs, Mexico has become a natural
opportunity because of its proximity to the United States, says Myers, and the fact that Mexico’s transportation networks and industrial supply
chains are closely integrated into those of the U.S. and Canada, the other members of NAFTA. “In
a way, China is a part of NAFTA
because China contributes a lot to the goods that wind up” in the United States and Canada, says Myers.¶
However, there are some differences between China’s relationship with Mexico, and China’s relationships with the other emerging countries of
Latin America, analysts point out. Kevin Gallagher, associate professor of International relations at Boston University, argues, “There are two
ways in which the China-Mexico relationship is somewhat unique. Lots of South American countries are exporting raw materials to China and
importing cheap goods from China,” which puts pressure on their domestic markets. Thus, in effect, China pays for its imports of Peruvian and
Chile copper, Argentine soybeans, Brazilian wheat, Colombian coal and so forth, by exporting low value manufactured goods to those countries.
However, notes Gallagher, “Mexico is different in that its primary raw material export -- crude oil -- goes to the United States, and not much of
Mexico’s exports go to China.” The two countries also compete directly in a wider range of products. “Over 90% of Mexico’s exports are under
threats from China in markets where China is gaining market share and Mexico is losing it,” adds Gallagher, co-author of the 2010 book, The
Dragon in the Room: China and the Future of Latin American Industrialization.¶ For his part, Enrique Dussel Peters, professor of economics at
UNAM, the Mexican National University, highlights unique sources of tension in the China-Mexico relationship. First, he notes, Mexican elites
began their integration with NAFTA way back in 1994, when NAFTA was established. That was long before the leading South American
countries deregulated their trade regimes. As a result, “Mexican
trade is very integrated into specific trade flows with
the U.S. and Canada.” Second, Dussel Peters says, “Mexico prefers to settle its trade disputes via multilateral panels at the World Trade
Organization, rather than settle disputes bilaterally. This is highly disliked by the Chinese,” who prefer to settle disputes
bilaterally. This difference in mindset has fostered “distrust and misunderstanding” between Mexico and China.
Third, although China has been Mexico’s second-biggest trading partner (behind only the U.S.) ever since 2003, Mexican policymakers have yet
to develop a clear and coherent strategy toward China. Dussel Peters argues that despite China’s rising importance for NAFTA nations, China
remains “NAFTA’s uninvited guest. China is of critical importance to the region, but NAFTA
has not been able to formalize
relationships between the NAFTA countries and China.”¶ to the U.S. and Canada “with little impact on the rest of
Mexico,” says Gallagher.
Mexico Judicial Modeling DA
The current system decreases the validity of Mexican courts
Puig 2005 – Lecturer in Law and Teaching Fellow at Stanford Program in International Legal Studies, Doctorate
degree in law from Stanford University, bachelor’s degree in law from Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico
(Sergio, “INVESTMENT ARBITRATION: SUBSTITUTE OR COMPLEMENT FOR DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS? THE NAFTA
WAIVER AND THE RECENT MEXICAN EXPERIENCE” 2005 http://www.asil.org/files/puig.pdf//SRM)
There are at least two alternative theories concerning the effects of
international arbitration on domestic institutions. On the one hand,
investment arbitration is a necessary system that may serve as a
complement to domestic institutions.11 On the other hand, it may
serve as a substitute for weak domestic institutions. Several
commentators have expressed concerns about a model that seems to
“circumvent,” “substitute” or “bypass” domestic institutions. In their
view, this substitution may have perverse effects on domestic
institutions. For instance, in the words of ICJ Judge Bernardo Sepulveda
Amor, by removing from national jurisdiction claims that Mexican
courts should resolve themselves, investment arbitration “diminishes
the validity of this country's juridical order.” Other commentators
have asserted that that this “circumvention” discourages domestic
courts from improving and keeps them from deciding increasingly
important matters.
Counterplans
NNAFTA CP
Text: The United States federal government should propose a round of negotiations
between Canada, the United States, and Mexico to clarify [immigration, energy, other]
provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Revising NAFTA would help the US economy and resolve immigration issues
Whitt 10 --- Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Preston “Negotiating a new NAFTA” The Panama News Spetember 16, 2010
<http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_16/issue_10/economy_07.html>
In the buildup to the United States presidential elections in 2008, NAFTA played a significant role in both major political parties' platforms.
While Senator McCain defended NAFTA as an American economic stimulant, then-Senator Obama called for the reopening of NAFTA for
negotiation on the major issues of environmental and labor rights protection. But as the second anniversary of President Obama's election is
now approaching, NAFTA has yet to make its way to the point in the president's singular, mono-issue style.
As the US economy
continues to shed jobs and stutter in its recovery, successfully organizing a NNAFTA (New NAFTA) could
significantly help both the economy and Obama's political prospects in upcoming elections. More than just improving
the American jobs outlook, seemingly the most pressing American political issue, a better and more equitable NAFTA
would help resolve another political quagmire plaguing the United States --- immigration reform. As Zepeda, Wise, and
Gallagher aptly put it, "one of the paradoxes of NAFTA is that Mexico now 'exports' more people than ever." For most of these displaced
immigrants, their quest for jobs ends in the United States, which, if the recent panic-driven attacks on the 14th Amendment are any indication,
by improving NAFTA, the Obama
administration could set the stage for two huge political triumphs --- as well as help improve the lives
of average North Americans. It is to be hoped that revising NAFTA will soon make its way back into the political arena of discussion
is acknowledged as a "big" problem requiring an almost visionary agenda.¶ Thus,
and debate.
xt solvency
Even proponents want to revise NAFTA, revisions could increase border security
Bamrud 12 (Joachim award-winning journalist and editor with more than 20 years experience, specializing in Latin America worked for
Reuters, UPI, The Miami Herald, Christian Science Monitor, Index of Censorship, Global Finance and Latin Trade, editor of Latin Business
Chronicle) “NAFTA Turns Twenty” December 5, 2012 <http://www.latinvex.com/app/article.aspx?id=409>
Moving ahead, even
its supporters acknowledge that NAFTA can be improved. One area that needs more
focus is how to obtain more benefits from the North American Development Bank, argues Leycegui. She also sees the
need to promote closer ties between the private sectors of the three countries in order to establish an advisory council representative of the
industries. Hills sees room
for improvement in two areas: Removing unnecessary impediments at the
borders that clog supply chains and expanding markets for NAFTA products through free trade agreements with other
areas and countries. Hills also argues for increased awareness about NAFTA. “The task of educating our citizens of the untapped potential of
two major
improvements would be to develop a single continental transportation plan and the creation a
common external tariff, as Pastor recommends in his new book The North American Idea: A Vision of a Continental Future. “With a
common external tariff, border officials would focus on drug-trafficking, migration, and illicit trade
and leave the legitimate commerce, including trucks, to transit expeditiously,” he says.
this powerful economic relationship cannot be left to government alone,” she writes in her column. However,
NAFTA needs revisions
Schott 08
[Jeffrey J. Peterson Institute for International Economics. The North American Free
Trade Agreement: Time for a Change? Page 2-3. November 21-23, 2008.
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/20081218schott.pdf. //SRSL]
The pact was “state of the art” when
promulgated. But the world economy has changed significantly since then and it is fair to ask: Does
NAFTA need to be revised? The incoming Obama administration will undoubtedly argue for such an
initiative, since the President-elect criticized NAFTA’s provisions on, inter alia, labor and the
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force on January 1, 1994.
environment during the US election campaign.
The Democratic critique elicited a sharp response from Canadian and
Mexican officials, who countered that “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” but if opened that they would demand revisions of NAFTA rules on energy,
agriculture, and trucking. This paper argues that both sides are correct! NAFTA has met the ambitious goals set by its architects, though not the
exaggerated promises of politicians in each of its member countries. Integration
of the three economies has advanced—
though the gains have been distributed unevenly and mask adjustment problems besetting workers
and firms in each country. At the same time, each NAFTA member subsequently negotiated trade pacts with other countries that
significantly improve upon the NAFTA model, and the post-September 11 era requires cooperation in areas that were off the radar of the
original NAFTA drafters.
NAFTA could use some renovation to restore it to its world-class status. In other
words, NAFTA has worked well (albeit with a few bumps along the road) but now needs to be
retooled. I believe that “updating” NAFTA is both necessary and desirable and can be pursued in a
manner that ensures that it contributes to sustainable economic growth in all three countries. I divide
my analysis into two parts. First, I summarize the economic performance of the NAFTA partners over the past 15 years. Second, I address
key challenges facing the three economies and suggest ways that they can work together to confront
them.
NAFTA needs improvement—did not account for illegal immigration, drugs, ect.
Schott 08
[Jeffrey J. Peterson Institute for International Economics. The North American Free
Trade Agreement: Time for a Change? Page 3-4. November 21-23, 2008.
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/20081218schott.pdf. //SRSL]
When reviewing NAFTA’s record, it is worth noting that NAFTA did not provide guidelines for the distribution within each country of the gains
from closer integration.
Economic integration produces winners and losers— not every worker or
community benefits . While NAFTA encouraged structural reform of the three economies, it left the
task of managing the adjustment process to each government, and national adjustment programs
have been generally limited and under-funded—contributing to worker discontent. In addition,
NAFTA was not designed to cure many of the ills of each society—including high levels of illegal
immigration, trafficking of illegal drugs, and growing income disparities within countries.
Income
disparities between northern and southern Mexican states are particularly pronounced. Some of these problems are correlates of economic
integration, even though NAFTA is only a small part of the story.
NAFTA would benefit from updating
Schott 08
[Jeffrey J. Peterson Institute for International Economics. The North American Free
Trade Agreement: Time for a Change? Page 13. November 10-11, 2008.
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/20081218schott.pdf. //SRSL]
The NAFTA was “state of the art” when it was crafted in the early 1990s. While Canadian and Mexican officials understandably have responded
cautiously to calls to “reopen” the agreement, in fact NAFTA
was designed to be a “living document” and has been
continuously revised over the past decade (particularly the rules of origin). After 15 years it could stand some
renovation to reflect lessons learned in subsequent trade deals, and more importantly changes in the world economy. I believe that
NAFTA could benefit from some updating, for three reasons: Some items were excluded from NAFTA
coverage (including some farm products, energy investment in Mexico, rules on subsidies and
dumping, and migration). Some NAFTA provisions were weakly constructed and should be recast
(including the labor and environmental side accords, and some dispute-settlement procedures and
definitions). Changing conditions in the global environment in which NAFTA operates were not on the
radar screen of the original drafters (especially border security and climate change). Simply put,
despite a decade of progress, the three NAFTA partners still have a lot of work to do together to
address new economic and political challenges that threaten to impede future benefits from regional
economic integration. There are many specific areas of friction among the three countries; some
problems remain intractable such as illegal immigration, and others, like trucking and sugar, involve
strong political constituencies. For this paper, I focus on broader topics that merit attention and can
produce concrete gains from cooperation among the NAFTA partners.
Solvency - Energy
NAFTA revisions key to energy security
Schott 08
[Jeffrey J. Peterson Institute for International Economics. The North American Free
Trade Agreement: Time for a Change? Page 13. November 10-11, 2008.
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/20081218schott.pdf. //SRSL]
NAFTA countries are energy interdependent, with substantial cross-border flows of
petroleum, natural gas, and electricity (see table 7 for production, trade, and consumption data). Canada is the largest
and most secure supplier of oil and natural gas to the United States. Electricity grids are substantially
As noted earlier, the
integrated between the United States and Canada, but not between the United States and Mexico.
Following the Canada-US FTA, NAFTA led to the removal of tariffs and quantitative restrictions on energy trade between the United States and
Investment in Mexico’s energy sector, proscribed by its
constitution, was not covered by NAFTA’s obligations. Mexico requires huge investments to exploit its
offshore reserves (urgently needed to offset declining production in major oilfields) and to upgrade its
Canada, but those rules were not extended to Mexico.
distribution networks for electricity and natural gas. NAFTA does not go far enough to ensure energy
security. This is a subject for greater cooperation.
NAFTA Bad
Ag/Enviro
NAFTA decimates relations by killing the agriculture sector of Mexico
Smith Novemeber 18, 2002 *foreign correspondent in Latin America, covering the most important political and economic news,
observe the region’s dramatic evolution up Close, Inter-American Development, specialties include economic development, macroeconomics,
international trade, foreign investment, off-shoring and outsourcing, resource nationalism, immigration, micro-finance, poverty and corporate
philanthropy Bank¶ (Geri “FARMERS ARE GETTING PLOWED UNDER” http://www.organicconsumers.org/chiapas/112602_chiapas.cfm)//MW
Prior to NAFTA, small plots of land were permanently deeded to Mexico’s peasant farmers. In preparation for
NAFTA, Mexico was required to change its constitution to allow foreign ownership of this land and allowed these plots to be sold or seized by creditors. In addition, NAFTA opened
the door for the dumping of large amounts of subsidized U.S. agricultural goods on the Mexican
market – lowering prices and endangering the livelihood of peasant farmers. For example: Corn is the primary crop in Mexico,
but post-NAFTA farmers received 70% less for their harvests because U.S. corn imports into Mexico
more than quadrupled since 1993. 12 Unable to compete with U.S. prices and with no employment prospects in their rural communities, more than 2
million Mexican farmers have been forced off their land since NAFTA was enacted. These disenfranchised farmers have
migrated to the already overcrowded and heavily polluted cities and manufacturing zones of Mexico, worsening existing environmental and health conditions. It is estimated that NAFTA
created only 700,000 manufacturing jobs in Mexico - far too few to absorb the 2 million displaced farmers and the 130,000 jobs lost in domestic manufacturing due to the replacement of
Mexican farmers have called for a suspension of NAFTA tariff reductions,
and a re-negotiation of NAFTA’s agriculture provisions, but to no avail. With no employment prospects and worsening living conditions, many farmers believe their
only option to earn a living is to attempt the perilous crossing into the United States. ¶ Impacts on Mexico’s Natural
Resources ¶ The weakening of environmental standards by NAFTA has also caused the increased use of chemical intensive
production methods in Mexico’s large commercialfarms.These methods include the use of harmful pesticides and fertilizers that pollute land
and water resources. Specifically, they contribute to high soil salinity, ground-level ozone, lake and river acidification,
and the disruption of natural forest processes.14The change in land ownership and the more export oriented farming system in Mexico have also led to a
dramatic loss of forests and the unique biodiversity they sustain. Peasant farmerswho were driven off their lands were
forced to clear forestland for farming and fuel. Since the implementation of NAFTA the annual rate of deforestation in Mexico has risen to 1.1 million
formerly domestically produced goods by imports. 13
hectares – practically doubling the prior rate of 600 thousand hectares.15 This places Mexico second behind Brazil in the rate of deforestation.
Nafta kills Mexico’s agriculture sector, a renegotiation is necessary
Green November 2010 *Writer for Dissent, History Professor for University of Maryland, specializes in United States labor and workingclass history, co-founder and co-director of the Center for the History of the New America, James A. Rawley Prize winner, author of award
winning book, The Canal Builders¶ (Julie, “Corn and Country: Nebraska, Mexico, and the Global Economy,”
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/corn-and-country-nebraska-mexico-and-the-global-economy)//MW
All this lowers the cost of corn production in Nebraska and, combined with globalization, it has generated soaring corn exports from the United
States to Mexico. The
passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 required that Mexico eliminate
both tariffs that protected corn farmers as well as a measure in its constitution forbidding the sale of
communal peasant lands. Mexican tariffs on corn were gradually reduced and finally ended altogether in 2008.¶ These
changes have meant the loss of at least 1.5 million agricultural jobs in Mexico. U.S. corn exports now
constitute one-fifth of Mexican corn consumption, a tripling in volume since the passage of NAFTA, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that figure will double again in the next decade. The decline of
peasant agriculture, the resulting rise in unemployment, the increase in food costs, and concerns about importation of genetically modified
seed corn have led to massive protests across Mexico, much of it organized as part of the “Sin Maíz, No Hay País” campaign
(“Without Corn, There Is No Country”). The campaign demands a renegotiation of NAFTA, recognition of the
multifunctional value of peasant agriculture, a moratorium on genetically modified seeds, a ban on using corn to produce ethanol, and a return
to sustainable agricultural practices. Meanwhile, as farmers and farm employees have been pushed off the land, they increasingly look to
emigration to the United States—and to towns like Fremont—for work. As Harley Shaiken has observed, “The beginnings of immigration are in
the displacement of farmers in Mexico.”
Mexico Econ
NAFTA ineffective in stimulating Mexican economy
Mackay, 04 (Donald R. -Executive Director of the Canadian Foundation for the Americas, 2/25/04,
“Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs,”
http://www.focal.ca/pdf/trade_Mackay_NAFTA%20north%20american%20free%20trade%20agreement
_parliamentary%20testimony_February%2025%202004.pdf
Official policy along with Mexico’s notable achievements notwithstanding, there remains a deep
feeling of resentment within Mexico that is directed at government policies such as the NAFTA .
Liberalized market forces, including its international trading regime, have certainly helped Mexico. Today, Mexico is on par with Poland in terms
of per capita income (roughly US$9,146) but still a third of its North American partners. Mexico has become a more modern economy where
services account for 68.3% of GDP, where industry accounts for 27.6% and where agriculture accounts for 4.0%. The comparable figures for
Canada are 67.3% in services, 30.1% in industry and 2.6% in agriculture. In Mexico’s case, however, it
is in the rural / agricultural
sector where the grinding levels of poverty and inequity remain the most visible and the deepest
rooted. Rightly or wrongly, the continued inability to raise this sector above the levels of simple
subsistence is attributed to public policies such as the NAFTA.
NAFTA fails to fulfill promises set out by the US, causes Mexican economy to slump
Stiglitz, 04 (Joseph E. -Joseph E. Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and author of
"The Roaring 90's," was chief economist of the World Bank from 1997 to 2000. He won the Nobel Prize
in economics in 2001.1/6/04, “The Broken Promise of NAFTA,”
http://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/Econ204/Readings/stiglitz_NAFTA_(2004).pdf
But while Mexico benefited in the early days, especially with exports from factories near the
United States border, those benefits have waned, both with the weakening of the American economy
and intense competition from China. Meanwhile, poor Mexican corn farmers face an uphill battle
competing with highly subsidized American corn, while relatively better off
Mexican city dwellers benefit from lower corn prices. And as all but one of Mexico's major banks have
been sold to foreign banks, local small- and medium-sized enterprises — particularly in non-export
sectors like small retail — worry about access to credit. Growth in Mexico over the past 10 years has
been a bleak 1 percent on a per capita basis — better than in much of the rest of Latin America, but far
poorer than earlier in the century. From 1948 to 1973, Mexico grew at an average annual rate of 3.2
percent per capita. (By contrast, in the 10 years of NAFTA, even with the East Asian crisis, Korean growth
averaged 4.3 percent and China's 7 percent in per capita terms.) And while the hope was that NAFTA
would reduce income disparities between the United States and its southern neighbor, in fact they have
grown — by 10.6 percent in the last decade. Meanwhile, there has been disappointing progress in
reducing poverty in Mexico, where real wages have been falling at the rate of 0.2 percent a year. These
outcomes should not have come as a surprise. NAFTA does give Mexico a slight advantage over other
trading partners. But with its low tax base, low investment in education and technology, and high
inequality, Mexico would have a hard time competing with a dynamic China. NAFTA enhanced Mexico's
ability to supply American manufacturing firms with low-cost parts, but it did not make Mexico into an
independently productive economy.
Corporate Power/Neolib
NAFTA perpetuates a an elitist society, giving the power to the corporations
Ensinger July 17, 2011 *Freelance Journalist at The American Independent¶ Freelance Journalist at Suburban News Publications¶
Journalist at EconomyInCrisis.org¶ Reporter/Columnist at The Ohio State University(Dustin, “Free Trade: Unpopular Among Most, Profitable for
Few,” http://economyincrisis.org/content/free-trade-unpopular-among-most-profitable-few)
America’s failed trade policies and broken campaign finance system are inextricably linked. That much is proved by the fact that
the vast majority of Americans oppose those policies; members of both major parties are forging ahead
on a trio of stalled trade pacts.¶ The average American has come to realize that North American Free Trade
Agreement style trade pacts do nothing more than lead to the loss of millions of jobs and enrich a few
multinational corporations in the process.¶ A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from last year found that 69 percent of
Americans believe that free trade agreements have cost America jobs. Just 18 percent believe that those agreements have
created jobs.¶ A majority of Americans – 53 percent – believe that free trade has hurt the nation overall. That’s up from just 46 percent in 2007
and 30 percent in 1999.¶ In this case, those opinions don’t matter, however, because it is the moneyed interests that make the political world
go ‘round.¶ “The
minority that supports the NAFTA model, however, includes the country’s most powerful
corporate lobbies,” Gordon Lafer, a political science professor at Oregon University writes in The Hill.¶ “The strongest advocates of ‘free
trade’ are the Chamber of Commerce and multinational corporations such as GE, which sent tens of thousands of jobs overseas and built a
profitable business helping others do likewise.Ӧ With an army of lobbyists, and millions to lines the pockets of politicians, the
average
American does not stand much of a chance against those corporate giants. That has been the case for years. But
because of a recent Supreme Court decision, things could get even worse.¶ Many of America’s campaign finance laws that prevented the
richest Americans and corporations from completely dominating the political landscape with their money was stripped in the fateful Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission decision.¶ “Like Republicans, the White House is eager to get these treaties done quickly, so that voters
will have forgotten by the fall of 2012,” Lafer writes.¶ “To see the Obama administration and Republican leadership quietly collaborating to seal
this deal in knowing violation of the voters’ will is among the most telling signs of corporate power in Washington, and among the most
depressing stories in these tough times