VIII. REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: NAFTA, MERCOSUL AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Discussion

Owen E. Herrnstadt
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

      Sandra Polaski, Lance Compa, and Maria Silvia Portela de Castro each contributed valuable comments on the historical development of regional integration in conjunction with the recently held LERA panel discussion. Although the focus of their papers and presentations may be slightly different„ Polaski on economic statistics, Compa on regulatory and legal framework, and de Castro on political development„each paper/presentation reflects an acknowledgement that there is enormous room for improvement with respect to how signatories to trade agreements handle fundamental workers rights. Most important, each paper also offers, at least to some extent, an alternative approach to current trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
     Polaski's presentation was based on her previous paper, "Perspectives on the Future of NAFTA: Mexican Labor in North American Integration." In that paper, she reminds us of the overall objectives of NAFTA: an increase in the standard of living for workers in each of the signatory countries. After all, the citizens of Mexico, the United States, and Canada were promised that workers would be better off under NAFTA.

    Despite these assurances, these promises have not been fulfilled, as described in detail by Polaski. Her descriptions of NAFTA's impact on Mexico's workers are sobering. Her conclusions, though striking, are not surprising. Those who opposed NAFTA from the beginning warned that, if implemented, workers in Canada, the United States, and, of course, Mexico would suffer. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, and workers and the communities that helped build some of the most successful corporations in the world have been left in tatters. Polaski's conclusion that NAALC institutions have produced few tangible gains is also no surprise. Although her recommendations for strengthening NAALC are interesting, given the abysmal failure of NAFTA, it is doubtful that anything less than dramatic modifications of the NAALC and its relationship to the core agreement would be fruitful.
     Lance Compa offers a review of the trade-labor linkage in the Americas, in "Crafting a Social Dimension in a Hemispheric Trade Agreement." Recognizing that some critics believe that "an effective workers' rights regime in trade agreements is an impossible goal," he argues that labor advocates should not walk away from attempting to shape trade agreements based on their current framework. Instead, he argues, labor advocates must stay engaged and develop new strategies that are practical given the current political and economic environment.
     Compa's paper offers an overview of NAALC and Mercosur. He concludes that alternatives offered by workers rights advocates concerning trade-labor linkages are impractical„a conclusion supported by the simple fact that they have been unsuccessful in convincing governments of their position. He argues that instead of outright rejection of the current framework, critics should adopt a strategy to "include a viable workers' rights chapter by building on models they [governments] have already freely adopted." He suggests that working with this strategy, workers rights advocates could demand, "a tough new clause . . . based on the principle of compliance with national law." Of course, key to this proposal according to Compa is that such national laws "comport with fundamental rights."
     Effective enforcement of national laws that "comport with fundamental rights" is a laudable goal. Linking enforcement to trade sanctions is also laudable. It provides a more effective enforcement mechanism, while at the same time, forms the basis for improving labor standards.
     Compa's solution might work if national laws satisfy internationally recognized labor standards„both substantively and procedurally (including implementation and enforcement). Moreover, if trade sanctions under an agreement will be available, than labor advocates might be somewhat receptive. The problem, however, may then be that many governments and corporations will reject this approach.
     Any proposal must keep in mind that NAFTA has become a symbol of the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the United States and Canada. As such, it is closely associated with the real pain felt by individuals, families, and communities. Modifications of the current framework that fall short of dramatic changes could be unacceptable for labor advocates who view the current system as tainted and who do not trust policy makers„especially those who promised that NAFTA would be beneficial to workers.
     The question as to why the current framework in the North American sense may be unworkable is best answered by Maria Silvia Portela de Castro. In "Mercosul and South American Regional Integration," she describes the historical, economic, and political development of the Mercosur. In reviewing her work, it is immediately apparent that the fundamental difference between NAFTA and Mercosur is that civil society is given a meaningful role in the development and the continual development of Mercosur. The fact that labor and workers rights are acknowledged in a real sense by influential policy makers and that labor advocates have at least an audience by the highest levels of government continues to make a difference as Mercosur evolves.
     In contrast, under the framework of North American regional trade agreements, the concept of inclusion, as presented by de Castro, does not exist. Until workers rights advocates are given some sort of meaningful role„and participation in the weak framework of the NAALC is certainly not meaningful„it will be far easier to remain skeptical about any real change (whether working within the current framework or not)„than to be hopeful.

.