At a panel discussion last night at Aquinas, five community members—Grand Valley State University sociology professor Michael Ott, international trade specialist for the Department of Commerce Tom Maguire, local activist Jeff Smith, Aquinas business professor Woody Hoover, and fair trade retailer Robin Tinholt—debated the current neoliberal model of "free trade" and discussed whether or not it was fair. The first question of largely determined the focus of the debate, with the majority of the debate essentially being an extended response to the moderators opening question asking the panelists to debate and analyze the functioning of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in its first decade. While the five minute time blocks each panelists had to respond to the question did not allow a thorough discussion of the particulars of NAFTA, the variety of responses were representative of many of the positions in the ongoing debate over NAFTA. There was a discussion about how NAFTA must be examined not simply on its own but as part of a neoliberal capitalist agenda and in relation to other such agreements. With Aquinas being a Catholic school, there was also discussion of the issue from a Catholic focus, with particular attention being focused on Pope John Paul II, who wrote extensively on market economies and who generally favored free trade but argued in favor of just wages and improved labor laws.
In response to the question asking for an analysis of NAFTA, the most interesting response came from Tom Maguire from the Department of Commerce. Maguire completely dismissed any possibility of the capitalist system being exploitative and pointed out to the audience that "capitalist money is sheltering you from the rain" and described how NAFTA had improved the lives of ordinary people. He cited general statistics on improved enforcement mechanisms, improved production capacity, and increased economic growth in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. When other panelists and the audience questioned Maguire on his assertions, including panelist Jeff Smith who had direct experience working with Mexicans affected by NAFTA, Maguire revealed how painfully little most trade bureaucrats know about the people affected by their trade policies. Maguire dismissed the concerns of workers in the United States such as those who lost their jobs at the Greenville Electrolux plant when the owners moved the factory to Mexico to obtain cheaper labor as being inevitable when it takes less people to make the goods than in the past and railed against union executives who "were living off the largesse" of their salaries and negotiated overpayment for their workers.
However, Maguire's most interesting comments came when he responded to a question about the affect of corn entering Mexico from the United States under NAFTA and how this has influenced rural people in Mexico. Maguire demonstrated a shocking disregard for the culture and history of Mexico and stated that the country can't grow corn because of its climate and that most Mexicans do not "give a tidily hoot where their corn comes from" and just want "corn for their bellies," ignoring the cultural importance of corn to Mexico's indigenous population. When another panelist pointed out that there are dozens of varieties of highly enriched corn in Mexico that have been grown for centuries, Maguire responded that the in terms of production Mexico is awful for corn. While other panelists discussed the form of cultural imperialism that such policies can take when they disrupt people's lives, Maguire described how husbands forced to move to the United States and send money back to their families back in Mexico were enjoying a substantial improvement over their pre-NAFTA involvement in farming for their own subsistence.
As is often the case with predominately academic panels, there was little discussion about what people affected by free trade policies can do in response. Both in panelist Jeff Smith's comments and in questions from the audience there was discussion about the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas and the lessons that might be learned from that uprising and the resulting experiments in democracy. These options offer one model of living in a manner more consistent with the notion of "fair trade," but it is difficult to see how those solutions may be used in the United States. Additionally, there was some brief discussion about the recent protests against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) at the Summit of the Americas and the attempts to craft an alternative to the free trade model at the People's Summit that activists organized before the Summit of the Americas. Unfortunately, there was little said about what specifically people can do in the United States beyond trying to buy fair trade goods and becoming better educated—both of which are worthy goals—but will not on their own substantively challenge neoliberal trade agreements and economic policies.
