After the past two weeks' discussion on the history of the border, we are moving on to examine how the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has contributed to the construction of a border between the United States and Mexico. Specifically, we will look at how NAFTA has led to the rise in drug cartel activity and related violence, and how these issues affect our trip.
Your 3 readings for this week are:
1) Happily Ever NAFTA, a series of articles that present conflicting views on how effective NAFTA has been in fulfilling its promises
2) In the Fight for Immigration Reform, Don't Forget About NAFTA
3) http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/its-a-war (Pick ONE article from this LA Times series on Mexico's drug war and in the comments section, please list which article you have chosen to read, so that people do not double up.)
In your blog response, feel free to talk about anything that stood out to you from the readings. Questions to guide your thoughts:
-Were you familiar with NAFTA before you read these articles? What did you know about it? Have these articles changed your perception of NAFTA and what "free trade" means?
-How has NAFTA created further inequalities between the United States and Mexico?
-Are you surprised by the multitude of articles from the LA Times on Mexico's drug war? After browsing through them, has your opinion on whether we should cross the border changed? If it has not changed, how has this new information informed your perspective?
Also, please enjoy this video/parody of NAFTA.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I read "25 bodies found in Acapulco, 15 decapitated". This article really made me think about how these drug wars affect young peoples lives. Since, the majority of the bodies found were of 30 years old. It makes me think about how many lives we have lost that never got to reach their full potential we have lost. It makes me wonder whether or not these young people got into drug cartels through family history or if they became connected through their own means. I feel that these events show that there needs to be more education to the youth in Mexico about staying away from violence. Programs similar to the Boys and Girls club here in the U.S. can serves as a model to keep youth away from becoming involved in the drug cartel violence.
The readings for this week gave me an unbiased perspective of NAFTA. Although the "Happily Ever NAFTA" article makes a good point in recognizing that a lot of the problems people often point to as consequences of NAFTA are in fact problems that had more to do with issues arising from different sources. However, I do think these problems, specially in the case of inequality in Mexico has really been exacerbated by NAFTA. It is not surprising that a free trade agreement would allow the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. As far as the the tariffs America has to pay in order to import to Mexico above the quota, this money doesn't take away from the fact that farmers are losing their jobs. The tariffs don't transfer into salaries for poor people.
The most profitable country is the US in all of this. The problem with NAFTA is that there is no freedom when a system is established that will grant benefits to the privileged.
For my LA Times article, I chose "Mexican Exiles in El Paso can see their Pasts across the River". This was a very touching description of the type of immigrant who crosses the boundary out of a real life and death motivation. Some of these people had been shot, on the verge of dying, deciding to move North out omnipotent fear for their lives. The lives they do leave behind is a cause for nostalgia as some are conscious of their family and friends believing they are actually dead. They choose to remain silent in order to protect themselves and their immediate families, starting over as a 'dead' refugee. The adjustments they have to make are difficult in that many are left isolated in El Paso neighborhoods where they don't feel the 'convivencia' that exists in their Juarez neighborhoods. Unless someone is completely heartless, it seems obvious that this is a case where immigration to the U.S. should more than permissible.
Reading “Happily Ever NAFTA” I read arguments that I was already aware of. It seems that the arguments against NAFTA are reoccurring: labor violations, lack of environmental protection, and no income distribution. The article reinforced my beliefs that NAFTA has only succeeded in making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It fails to address greater social issues such as unemployment, income inequality, and the destruction of the environment by manufacturing corporations near the border. However, many people call NAFTA successful because it was able to increase foreign direct investment and trade, but how can we call it successful when it has left hundreds of small Mexican farmers without a job? NAFTA has made Mexico more dependent on the US; more vulnerable to inflation and economic recessions during the same times that the US is going through these lows.
The LA Times article “Mexican drug cartels find youths to be easy prey” made me think of the young generation in Mexico and how they are affected by the drug war. It reminded me of my aunt’s news to my dad last year. She told us that the government had shut down the schools in her small pueblo because of threats from drug cartels. It seems like the government is trying to protect the children, but really how much protection is it offering when their education is the only escape from reality? If it’s not school, then where are school children going? They are becoming more vulnerable to drug cartels’ demands for soldiers and mules. Without much to do youth find it easy to become victims to drug cartels without even knowing it. It’s sad to know that young people are being turned to to meet the demands of drug cartels, who in turn are meeting the drug demands of the US.
I read "Mother shot dead at anti-crime vigil in Chihuahua" and also "Tijuana throws festival for break from drug violence." I read these two articles because they essentially examine the same event or type of activity in two different cities in Mexico, with two different outcomes. "Mother" is an article about a woman who attended an anti-war protest in honor of her daughter who had been an innocent casuality in the drug wars. At the protest, the mother was tragically killed. "Tijuana" is about a large celebration called "Innovadora" held in Tijuana featuring celebrity guests and thousands of people who honor the advancements made by the city and the small-scale yet progressive efforts to lessen activity surrounding the drug war. Thus these two articles both looked at the coming together and unifying of the community (the innocent bystanders most heavily effected by the violence and crime) to address the issue. Perhaps Tijuana and Chihuahua digress from one another in their approach to the issue--negative or positive, and still had killings happen while they were taking place, but they did something important, something rarely spoken about in the media. In the participation and social action generated by civil society, a certain hope is detectable, a hope not normally identified as part of the drug wars. I have noticed that in discussing the drug wars people often look to federal government or countries like the U.S. for solutions and help. However, rarely ever is the power and invention of the people living in Mexico ever accredited. These two articles shine light on the feats of the local--and this is extremely important. I feel that Mexico can only come to some form of recovery by implementing the people as tools to make the change, to protest, to celebrate their city, and appreciate their talent as potential help . I'm glad these articles were spotlighted because they remind us that the greatest strength comes from the civil society, and that they are the key to economic, political, and social growth for the future.
I read “Agent's death may mean increased security for U.S. role in Mexico drug war” from the LA Times series. I was rather surprised to see the amount of articles that were in the series simply because I did not know the events had been given this much coverage. The topic of this particular article hits very close to home for me because my father is an ICE agent and I know many others who work for the agency. It is striking to see the involvement that US agencies play in Mexican affairs. While it is reassuring to see that the US and Mexico can coordinate their attempts to alleviate the problems of the drug cartels, it brings to mind the issue of whether the US should involve themselves at all, and if so, how much.
This issue of US involvement in Mexican affairs is brought up repeatedly in Happily Ever NAFTA, and for the most part is portrayed as a negative thing. I did find it striking though that the piece claimed some problems that exist in Mexico cannot be attributed to NAFTA. To me, this merely reflects the complexity of the issue as a whole. If we can’t blame NAFTA, what is the source of these problems? How can they be remedied? The piece on immigration reform places a large amount of blame on NAFTA as the reason why Mexicans must immigrate to the US, but to me, this argument oversimplifies the various reasons why immigrants may want to come to America.
Before reading these articles I was already familiar with the failed NAFTA and its devastating effects on Mexico. I find it disturbing when people argue that NAFTA has been successful because it did what it was laid out to do, increase trade and foreign investment. Although, NAFTA did increase trade amongst US, Mexico, and Canada, it did so at the expense of the poor rural farm communities that have been faced with economic difficulties. NAFTA has further created the uneven development between the United States and Mexico in specific by the US taking their businesses to Mexico for the cheap labor that would be most cost-effective and productive for the US (ex. auto part industry). When NAFTA was created, emphasis should have been placed on the development of education in Mexico. The maquiladoras near the border that came as a result of NAFTA have further reinforced the presence of the border and the internal migration in Mexico to these areas has resulted in the stark demarcations of unevenness amongst both countries to be more visibly present.
I’m not surprised by the multitude of articles from the L.A Times on Mexico’s drug war since I occasionally read these articles on. However, the newspaper source I usually use is from Jalisco, Mexico. One thing I did notice from reading through some of these articles in comparison to articles that may be found in a Mexican newspaper is that the articles here (such as LA TIMES) are more opinioned in regards to the narco war versus Mexico newspapers just report some of the violent acts that took place and leave it at that. This just goes to show how journalism in Mexico is also in an ‘endangered risk’. If the authors of these articles say too much then they risk being killed.
My opinion on whether we should cross the border still hasn’t changed. Despite what the media has presented these past three years, I have gone to different parts of Mexico (Mexicali, Tijuana, Jalisco, Guanajuato, Aguascalientes) multiple times a year and I have never had a problem. However, I think it all comes down to precaution. If you plan on crossing the border and its in your plans to be out in the streets late at night then, the likelihood of encountering danger is very high. Being in Tijuana in the day in puplic areas in my opinion is not dangerous. Everyone has different ways of perceiving things.
I read two articles, “In Mexico, a dividing line on 'El Infierno'” and “Mexico has arrested a leader of Santa Muerte 'church'”. Earlier this year I watched the movie and found it to be very visually disturbing in that it was very graphic and funny but disappointed because it presented a clear image of the present state Mexico is in.
The article on the ‘Santa Muerte’ got me thinking on that saint and on another one, ‘Jesus Malverde’ and how the veneration of both of those saints is highly present in the lyrics of narco-corridos. In ‘El Infierno’, you see images of both of these saints that have been historically connected with the narcos of Mexico as well as use of corridos in the movie. Moreover, for the people who are not affiliated with the drug business and listen to these narco-corridos, does it mean that they are supporting the narco culture? Is it wrong to dress the way so-called ‘narcos’ dress, with the shiny belt, boots and sombrero and play corridos at a family party even though you don’t traffic drugs?
I honestly didn’t know that much about NAFTA. I knew that NAFTA was supposed to help increase trade between the three countries and I have heard of how it has hurt Mexico, but that was it. These articles helped me learn more about NAFTA and hopefully, in class, I will learn even more about it. Because I really am not knowledgeable of Mexico’s history or economy, I don’t really have a sense of what exactly has contributed to forming the issues Mexico deals with today, but it doesn’t seem like NAFTA was at all a progressive way to help ease any of the problems. If anything, I just feel like Mexican companies should be seeking Mexican employees and developing companies based in Mexico and the US should stop exploiting people in other countries and supply the US with not so specialized jobs. When economically stronger countries go in and make other countries dependent on exploitive labor, no one is benefiting but the company. Obviously, people in the US are getting cheaper shirts or cheaper hand bags, but a specific part of the US’s population is having trouble finding a job because they are having trouble obtaining an education that makes them qualified for the higher paying jobs that are available in the US. In the other nations, workers are being paid a very low minimum wage just to survive – the amount of money they are making isn’t enough to easily break out of the cycle that perpetuates social stratification.
I also think it is horrible that companies can so easily sue countries and win cases. This places the needs of companies above the best interests of the people.
I chose the article “Mexican drug wars spill across border.” Written in 2008, the article glides over how Mexican drug cartels have developed drug routes and contacts in many cities and states across the US, spreading violence and crimes, such as kidnappings. Although it did surprise me at first that there are drug routes in Georgia, Boston, Seattle, and Honolulu, it has to make sense.
I say it makes sense because these drugs have to get to their consumers. This is something that the article did not cover at all. The US is one of the biggest consumers of cocaine – and this cocaine is being used largely by middle and upper class whites, including youth and college students. Obviously, it is a horrible thing that drug cartels are using violence and crime to make profits, but I also think it is horrendously irresponsible for the US to continuously point out crimes involving drug traffickers and sellers with out shedding light on US consumers of cocaine are destroying the lives of innocent people in Mexico, along the border and the US.
Even just with the leading line, “Few regions of the U.S. are immune to drug-trafficking organizations that have left a trail of death, kidnappings and other crimes,” I feel like this article is trying to instill fear of the violence “spilling over” into the US. But why doesn’t the article say, “US’s destructive habits lead to thousands of Mexican murders” ???? I just feel like these articles don’t put any responsibility on the US and that this mind set is never going to help solve anything.
My desire to go to TJ has not changed. I still stand by the idea that by not going to TJ I as a student am only doing more harm than good by keeping myself from fully seeing the consequences of US action in Mexico.
Post a Comment