Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, July 3, 1993 TAG: 9309020324
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
U.S. District Judge Charles Richey on Wednesday opined that the pact, which would reduce trade barriers among the United States, Canada and Mexico, violates federal law because no environmental-impact statement has been filed.
Good luck trying to understand this case, which should be appealed promptly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
First of all, Richey's ruling arose from a lawsuit filed by, among others, Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen.
Nader, an outspoken protectionist, would like to raise trade barriers higher than they already stand. Not only would this strategy hurt jobs growth. It also would undercut Americans' ability to purchase lower-priced imported products, and would reduce the selection of goods available to buy. Thanks a lot, Mr. Consumer Advocate!
Joining Public Citizen in the suit were environmental groups, the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. Their leaders apparently cling to the assumption that free-market growth and environmental protection must be at odds, never mind the environmental record of, say, Eastern European socialists.
If the greens saw the forest for the trees they'd know that cutting trade barriers which retard economic growth could help Mexico reduce its pollution. Growth produces the technology and financial wherewithal for environmental protection; rising affluence produces the demand for it.
OK, so Nader and the environmentalists had their agendas a bit mixed up. What's worse is that the judge followed suit.
Congress, after all, enacted the laws requiring environmental-impact statements. It ought to be allowed to write new laws, such as approval for NAFTA, that would supersede the old ones. And on what grounds can Judge Richey tell a president that he can't send legislation to Congress?
For that matter, since when have foreign agreements become the province of the courts? Richey wrote in his decision that ``NAFTA will have significant environmental effects and . . . may worsen the environmental problems already existing in the United States-Mexico border area.''
Could be. But any such effects ought to be, and have been, the subject of diplomatic negotiation between the country's executives. Mexico lies outside the judge's jurisdiction.
Wait a minute, you say. What's wrong with getting an environmental-impact statement? It all seems reasonable and innocuous enough.
Except that the plaintiffs haven't sought such a statement so they can better understand the treaty's effects. Negotiators already have put together an analysis of potential environmental impacts, offering much the same information as would a formal statement.
The difference is that an environmental impact statement will open the treaty to endless legal challenge. Richey's decision, unless and until it is overturned, marks a great victory for the protectionists. It's a great setback for Mexico and the United States.
Including Virginia. You've doubtless heard about all the jobs Mexico will suck south of the border if NAFTA is approved. But Virginia exports more than just jobs. A recent report by Virginia Citizens for a Sound Economy notes that Virginia exports of products to Mexico rose by over 200 percent between 1987 and 1992, from $41 million to $131 million.
Among the items Virginians already export, and which they could export more under conditions of freer trade, are transportation equipment, industrial machinery, computers and food products. It's a good many jobs.
Increased exports, indeed, have accounted for roughly 70 percent of U.S. economic growth since 1989. Yet the supposed advocates of working people, like the supposed advocates of consumers and of the Constitution, would obstruct progress toward freer trade.
Go figure.
by CNB