UNTIL House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (D) of Missouri recently made formal his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the trade pact had a good chance of winning a majority in both the House and the Senate. It may still be approved, but Americans should question how defeating NAFTA would or would not affect Mexico.
Representative Gephardt says his main reason for opposing NAFTA is concern that the pact will cause a net loss of manufacturing positions in the United States. Fears about job losses due to lower wages in Mexico are justified, but not for the reasons cited by Gephardt and Ross Perot.
In fact, NAFTA will not cause American jobs to go south to Mexico. Rather, the current economic policies of the Salinas government already are stealing jobs from both American and Mexican workers, even without having NAFTA in place.
Since 1982, the proportion of Mexican manufacturing wages to comparable US pay has slid from one-third to almost one-tenth. Low wages come from the lack of democracy in Mexico, and for this reason Americans should say no to NAFTA.
Ninety million Mexicans live and work in an over-regulated economy where private cartels and government monopolies allied with Mexico's ruling party dominate many industries.
Mexicans cannot vote freely nor organize into labor unions, thus they cannot use the leverage of the ballot box or collective bargaining to seek higher wages.
The pro-NAFTA chorus claims that ``free trade'' under single-party rule will lead to greater democracy, a unique and post-modernist perspective. A commitment to democracy and the rule of law are the basic foundation for a free and open market. Yet more participants in the NAFTA debate avoid this fundamental political issue. In fact, the current situation inside Mexico offers a compelling refutation of the pro-NAFTA position. Mexicans stagger under a maze of arbitrary regulations and taxes that take roughly 35 percent more annually from Mexican firms than a similar US company would pay in the US.