‘Fast Track’ Trade and NAFTA
Your endorsement (“ ‘Fast Track’ Is Right Track for U.S. Trade Interest,” editorial, Sept. 10) of President Clinton’s request for congressional “fast track” authority to negotiate future trade agreements is at best disturbing. The last time Congress abrogated its responsibilities in trade negotiations the U.S. was stuck with NAFTA.
NAFTA, the American public was told, was going to create jobs in the United States, slow the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico, stem the tide of drugs crashing into our country and improve environmental conditions along the border. The reality has been more akin to Alice in Wonderland dating Freddy Krueger. In light of the past trade agreements arrived at through “fast track” negotiations, The Times should reconsider its support and oppose Clinton on this issue.
ROBERT C. PIKE
Montrose
On expanding NAFTA to Chile and beyond, the real issue is not “fast track” authorization for the president to negotiate new trade agreements, but rather the success or failure of NAFTA itself. Framing the issue as fast track makes it seem like a technical and procedural dispute, diverting attention from the inequities of NAFTA. It puts NAFTA in a position to expand without a democratic review of its past performance. The democratic process demands that legislation be given time on the table for discussion and review.
SHARLET WAGNER
Los Angeles
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
