By Oxfam
WorldNetDaily.com
March 31, 2007


Globalization benefits wealthy exporters at expense of farmers, workers,

So-called "free trade" agreements are not free at all,
victimizing the poor while benefiting the wealthy, says a new report by
Oxfam International, the coalition fighting poverty, suffering and social
injustice around the world.

Nevertheless, a trend toward regional agreements and globalization
continues, with an average of two bilateral or multilateral investment
treaties being signed every week, according to the study.

"In an increasingly globalized world, these agreements seek to benefit
rich-country exporters and firms at the expense of poor farmers and
workers, with grave implications for the environment and development," the
report said.

There are more than 250 regional and bilateral agreements in place today
and many more are in the works, according to Oxfam. These treaties already
govern more than 30 percent of world trade.

Emily Jones, author of the Oxfam report, pointed to NAFTA, the North
American Free Trade Agreement, as a case study.

Her report said NAFTA has brought 1.3 million job losses to Mexico in 10
years. Other studies have explained how cheap agricultural imports from
U.S. agribusiness concerns have made it nearly impossible for small
farmers to compete. Many reportedly have been forced from their land and
become illegal migrant workers in the U.S.

In fact, the implementation of NAFTA coincides with the largest wave of
illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico in history.

Jones said some studies show Mexico's real wages in 2004 were less than in 1994.

That is exactly the effect of the so-called "free trade" agreements cited
in the Oxfam report.

"When Mexico liberalized financial services in 1993 in preparation for
NAFTA, foreign ownership of the banking system increased to 86 percent in
seven years, but lending to Mexican businesses dropped from 10 percent of
gross domestic product to 0.3 percent, depriving poor people living in
rural areas of vital sources of credit," Jones reported.

Some question whether agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization should actually be characterized as "free trade" agreements
because of their complexity. The agreements represent tens of thousands of
pages of rules and regulations, whereas "free trade" traditionally meant
simply an end to tariffs.

As WND previously reported, some experts believe Mexico's political,
economic and social instability is a direct result of NAFTA.

NAFTA has driven many legitimate Mexican farmers out of business, and many
have turned to drug cultivation, charges Charles Bowden, author of "Down
By The River," and other acclaimed books about the drug business.

"It's one of the unintended consequences of NAFTA," he says.

He is not alone. Ask many Mexican illegal aliens why they make the trek
north and they will tell you about their inability to make it in their own
country as small farmers – since NAFTA and the increase of duty-free U.S.
products into the country.

In effect, some economists see the cheap labor flooding into America
helping the U.S. agribusiness concerns squeeze out Mexican family farmers.
The more smaller farms collapse, the more migrant workers trek north and
the more cheap labor is available to big U.S. farmers. It's a vicious
cycle, they say.

In addition, with the drug crisis raging in Mexico and even threatening
its national security, some are pointing to the "protections" NAFTA has
provided to the drug runners.

Up to three-quarters of cocaine entering the U.S. now comes via Mexico –
as well as most of its marijuana. In 1996, the U.S. and Mexican
governments agreed to start training Mexican soldiers in the U.S. for the
"war on drugs." These elite commandos were called "Los Zetas." They have
now switched sides and are working as a paramilitary security detail for
the drug cartels.

According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, over the past decade,
Colombia-based drug groups have allowed Mexico-based trafficking
organizations to play an increasing role in the U.S. cocaine trade. In the
1980s, Colombia's drug dealers used the drug smugglers in Mexico to
transport cocaine shipments across the Southwest border into the U.S. but
retook possession of the narcotics once the transporters arrived in the
U.S. After the seizure of nearly 21 metric tons of cocaine in 1989, the
Colombians changed the way they did business and allowed Mexico-based
transportation groups to receive up to half the cocaine shipment they
smuggled in exchange for their services.

According to the DEA, "virtually all heroin produced in Mexico and South
America is destined for the U.S. market." This reflects a big increase
since NAFTA.

Analysts estimate that Mexican drug gangs make $3 billion to $30 billion
annually by smuggling cocaine to the U.S. and have police, politicians and
judges from both sides on their payrolls.

In addition to being blamed for the exploding drug crisis, NAFTA is also
being blamed in some quarters for the rise in illegal immigration from
Mexico into the U.S.

Former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda made some candid
assessments in 2005 at a border symposium on the expansion of NAFTA-style
agreements in the Americas and Europe.

According to Castaneda, who is running for the Mexican presidency as an
independent, "NAFTA was oversold." There were divided views as to whether
it accelerated moves toward human rights in Mexico, a country that has
only recently emerged from one-party rule. On the economic level,
productivity in Mexico remained "flat."

"NAFTA has not been a factor of significant economic growth." And while it
was supposed to reduce illegal immigration, quite the opposite happened,
he said. "There's more immigration from Mexico to the U.S. today than ever
before in history."

With rising immigration came increased security risks, he acknowledged.

"The first al-Qaida guy that they catch coming in from Mexico, and we have
a major problem in Mexico," he said.