|
Bush is
sending 6000 soldiers to the Mexican border
Where
will Europe send its troops when the EPAs are signed?
Perhaps you wonder: “What is an EPA?” You are not
alone. I just met a Euro-Parliamentarian, who did not know either.
And that is indeed worrying.
An EPA is one of the agreements that the
EU is now about to sign with various regions in Africa (and also
in the Pacific and the Caribbean). Initially, the term was Free
Trade Agreements, but as they seemed alarming to some (and rightly
so, please see below), the Europeans changed terminology and are
now talking of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).
A
few days ago I heard President Bush announce that he was
despatching 6000 soldiers to the Mexican border to stop illegal
immigration. These troops are a reinforcement of the border
patrols already in action.
In
doing so President Bush pays heed to some strong feelings among
U.S. citizens and the Congress in particular. Indeed, on December
16, 2005 and overwhelming Congress majority voted in
favour of an extremely repressive anti-immigration Bill. It
provides for the construction a 1000 km long and 4.5m high wall,
in 5 sections, along the border between the U.S. and Mexico
(lining one third of the entire length of the border).
The
announcement had the effect of a bomb in Mexico. President Vicente
Fox, who usually keeps a low profile in his relations with his
northern neighbour, lashed out against the “hypocrisy”
of such a step. He found it inconceivable that “in the 21st
Century a wall could be put up between two countries, fellow
nations living in association with one another”.
How
come that the Mexican President talks of “fellow nations”
in “association with one another”? The explanation is
that in January 1994 Canada, the U.S. and Mexico launched the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which became the
world’s largest free trade area. Therefore President Fox
speaks of fellow nations and associated nations, while Europe goes
for partnerships.
Today
it is about time to ask the question: Who benefits from NAFTA? One
thing is certain: Not the Mexican farmers.
Already
in 2003 André Maltais wrote:
“In
the year 2000 a study by Professor Alejandro Nodal of the College
of Mexico revealed that since the 1994 entry into force of NAFTA,
15 million out of 20 million Mexican farmers had lost so much of
their earnings that they were thinking of abandoning their land.
At
present, one million small-scale producers of maize have given up
and every day 600 more do the same. A further million has to leave
their homeland at least for part of the year and look elsewhere
for a living that they previously earned by selling their
harvested crop.
The
situation will deteriorate further in the coming years, because
the two most important crops, beans and maize, will have to pass
through the NAFTA treadmill by 2008.
Maize
alone occupies 60% of arable land in Mexico and accounts for 60%
of the aggregate value of its agricultural production. It provides
a livelihood for three million peasants and their families and for
40% of all labourers in agriculture, i.e. 8% of the country’s
population.
…/…
“Mexican
farmers have lived on maize for over 5000 years. But within
only nine years of its existence NAFTA has enforced a 40%
increase of Mexico’s imports of American maize (which
benefits from American subsidies!).
Source:
http://www.lautjournal.info/autjourarchives.asp?article=1449&noj=220
NAFTA did not start the emigration of
Mexicans to the U.S., but in destroying its farming land, it
certainly did swell the exodus considerably.
EPAs and NAFTA are two sides of
the same coin.
There is
one difference only, but an important one: In 1994
Mexican peasants made up 25% of the population. In many African
countries over 70% are farmers or livestock herders. Where will
they go when the EPAs have been signed? That is to say when Africa
(with no import duties to protect it) will be in direct
competition with European agriculture, which is technically more
advanced and on top of it all subsidised! Where will they turn
when the devastating effects of free trade agreements will have
pushed the peasantry down into misery? African towns and cities do
not have the capacity to care for them. Where will they try and go
if not - most of them - to Europe?
How will Europe react then?
Where will
it post its troops?
Where
will it build its wall?
Maurice
Oudet, June 2 2006
|
