Decision to Support NAFTA Is a Difficult One, but Commendable

Sometimes, the best political decisions are among the most difficult to make. For some members of the U.S. Congress, announcing their support of the North American Free Trade Agreement falls squarely into that category. Here in the San Fernando Valley and its environs, for example, opposition to the pact and fear over its impact have been strong. But Reps. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) and Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) have both come out strongly for the accord. Their decision is commendable and worthy of note, particularly since both, as a result, have risked the alienation of many constituents and longtime supporters.

NAFTA, as it is most commonly known, is the historic agreement that would phase out tariffs and lower other trade barriers between Mexico, Canada and the U.S. over the next 15 years. This vital and visionary pact would create the largest free market in the world, with more than 350 million consumers.

American labor leaders have argued that U.S. companies will use NAFTA as an excuse to move jobs out of the country, allowing them to pay much lower wages in Mexico. Environmentalists fear that it will be seen as a green light to pollute south of the border, and most rabid protectionists simply want to sabotage it.

Beilenson was the first Valley-area lawmaker to take a definite stand in favor of the pact, in spite of the fact that as he put it, “the people who are most concerned about it or most vocal about it are, almost without exception, opposed to it.”

Berman, a former labor attorney, broke with his longtime labor allies in throwing his support behind NAFTA. Included among those who oppose Berman’s stance are folks who have been major financial contributors over the years. They “feel more intensely about this than any other issue I’ve seen.” Berman said.

The congressmen are not alone, however. It is useful to note that the board of VICA--the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., has unanimously endorsed NAFTA. VICA claims 364 member companies employing some 120,000 workers in the San Fernando Valley.

In truth, NAFTA is neither a labor nightmare or a panacea for the national and regional economy. It would, among other things, improve relations with Mexico, help U.S. exports and help the Mexican economy. It would not end the recession or put millions of Americans out of work.

NAFTA is about promoting the one sector of the U.S. economy that has been booming even during the recession: exports and other forms of foreign trade. In the last four years alone, Mexicans have nearly doubled their purchases of U.S.-made goods, from $20.6 billion in 1988 to $40.6 billion in 1992. The agreement would therefore help to regulate a very useful process of economic integration that is already well under way.

Several studies, including one by the California Office of Planning and Research, have also concluded that the freer trade promoted by NAFTA will create many more U.S. jobs than it will eliminate. The Institute for International Economics, for example, projects a net gain in the U.S. of 600,000 American jobs. And if exports to Mexico grow at the conservative rate of just 13% a year, it could create an additional 400,000 jobs. In fact, state exports to Mexico have grown an average of 24.4% per year over the past five years.

The states most likely to benefit from NAFTA are those such as California and Texas--areas that already benefit from trade with Mexico.

Beilenson agrees, saying “what we are talking about here is reducing trade barriers. It’s clear that we are going to be able to sell even more” to Mexico in the future if Congress approves NAFTA.

Berman sees a glimmer of hope for a Valley economy that has been decimated by the recession and by the loss of firms that have been lured to other states through financial and other incentives.

“Defense cutbacks have resulted in the loss of these jobs to an extent far greater than anything NAFTA opponents point to in their most dire predictions,” Berman argues. “I am convinced that NAFTA is the route to restoring manufacturing jobs.”

Political leaders in Mexico and Canada have displayed vision and courage in pushing for NAFTA. That’s in spite of a fierce nationalism in both countries from those who would seek to deny the benefits of further economic integration. A failure to support NAFTA now would cause a rift with two important neighbors and economic harm to this country.

For those most concerned, perhaps overly so, about the ill effects of illegal immigration, NAFTA also may be part of the solution. Illegal immigrants come here for jobs, not citizenship, and NAFTA represents a chance to keep Mexico stable and slow the migration of poor Mexican workers into this country. So says President Clinton, who brought the message even closer to home by arguing that NAFTA would also help out the many California businesses that rely on free trade, and bring closer the day when a stronger Mexican economy will dissuade workers from illegally entering the U.S. to find a semblance of prosperity.

Those are just a few of the reasons why support for NAFTA represents a sensible stance. Perhaps they will convince other lawmakers in the Valley and its environs to reconsider their opposition, or slip over to the right side of that fence they’ve been sitting on.