PERSPECTIVE ON NAFTA : The Black-Latino Alliance Withers : African-Americans fear that they’ll bear the brunt of job loss; can the President persuade them otherwise?

Not long ago, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus stood before a roomful of Capitol reporters and announced the caucus’ opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement. As press conferences go, it was a mundane occurrence. As for symbolism and effect, the Black Caucus’ pronouncement was historic and monumental.

The Black Caucus is the largest single-interest voting bloc in Congress, and it does not always act in unison. For all 40 members to agree to oppose the President is significant. Yet there is a poignant aspect of this turn of events that NAFTA supporters should not overlook: The Black Caucus’ opposition puts African-Americans in stark and direct opposition to Latinos on an issue of national and international proportions.

Since the late 1960s, African-Americans and Latinos have had a tenuous coalition, voting uniformly on such political and economic issues as employment, housing, health care, tax reform and crime. The two groups became circumstantial allies largely because of their relative poverty vis-a-vis white Americans and the similarity of their urban conditions. In recent years, demographics and reapportionment have brought additional members to their ranks and new constituencies, particularly in the Southeast and Southwest.

Now comes the North American Free Trade Agreement--a Republican initiative inherited and embraced by President Clinton. If the Black Caucus and black civil-rights groups remain firm in their opposition to NAFTA while Latino legislators and organizations press hard for its passage, debate on other political issues, such as redistricting, equal representation in legislative bodies and federal funding for community programs will be even more volatile. Inside the Beltway, this may not be such a big deal, but in states like California and Texas, the NAFTA debate touches on racial and emotional themes that have been simmering for years.

Arguments on both sides of NAFTA have merit. African-American leaders warn that it will drain jobs from black communities by providing U.S. companies with strong inducements--or excuses--to employ labor from south of the border. They also fear that, in addition to wiping out job opportunities in the labor-intensive medium- and low-technology sector, NAFTA will sound the death-knell for the enterprise-zone concept of inner-city investing. Donn Davis, a professor of government at Howard University, predicts an immediate adverse effect “on the ability of the black community to be seen as a viable place for American businesses to locate.”

Latino leaders are sympathetic to these concerns; they point out that Latinos, now a major urban population group, have just as much to lose. But they and most other supporters of NAFTA argue that it will provide jobs for American workers as the Mexican and Canadian markets open. They predict even greater opportunities as NAFTA fosters full-scale hemispheric integration among the growing Latin American economies. For every U.S. job that is lost, one and three-quarters jobs will be created, the argument goes.

The Black Caucus has adopted a Pan-Africanist stance on the international economic consequences of NAFTA. Black leaders fear that preferential treatment for Mexican goods, particularly agricultural commodities and textiles, will result in immediate and significant loss in trade revenues for Caribbean countries, the majority of which are black. In effect, the argument goes, NAFTA will undo the few benefits those countries gained under the Reagan Administration’s Caribbean Basin Initiative.

To compound an already intricate and confusing scenario, it must be noted that Latino support of NAFTA is not universal. Three of the largest national Latino organizations have developed what they call a Latino consensus of reservations, demanding numerous amendments in such deal-stopping issues as job retraining, displaced-worker assistance, immigration and the creation of a North American development bank to mitigate problems in areas impacted by NAFTA. The consensus also requests attention for affected Caribbean countries. A House resolution by Rep. Esteban Torres (D-La Puente) reflecting these aims has the support and co-sponsorship of several African-American members. One problem is that, because it lacks the effect of law, Torres’ resolution can draw Congress members’ support while they maintain their basic opposition to NAFTA.

In the interim, the Clinton Administration is struggling to keep enough Democrats in a solid alliance with mainstream Republicans to vote against a preponderance of members representing the interests of organized labor, the far right, protectionists and environmentalists.

Against this crisscross partisan grid, it appears that Clinton has not paid much attention to the black versus Latino issues inherent in NAFTA. For a while, it seemed that the Administration was relying on NAFTA supporters here and the well-financed lobbying effort being waged by the Mexican government to persuade Congress of NAFTA’s merit.

There is still ample chance to cultivate the neutrality, if not the support, of black leaders by negotiating on those issues that have driven their opposition: jobs for the black community, ensuring minority business participation in international commerce, and protecting Caribbean nations from loss of trade revenues in favor of Mexico.

As the President navigates the rocky road of damage control, striking side deals along the way, he would do well to keep the racial and ethnic implications of NAFTA in mind.