Greetings from the students, faculty and staff who are spending the semester in Cuernavaca, Mexico with the Center for Global Education. Our program is called "Migration and Globalization: Engaging Our Communities." We are interested in issues of migration, globalization, gender, the environment, social justice, sustainable development, and peace. We look forward to sharing our insights and adventures with you throughout our semester abroad!
jueves, 5 de marzo de 2009
The Effects of a US Presence in Mexico
What effect has NAFTA had on agricultural livelihoods in Mexico?
By Josiah Guzik
NAFTA.The North American Free Trade Agreement was put into action January 1, 1994, allowing free (tariff free) trade between Mexico, US, and Canada.It gives Mexican farmers the chance to sell easily to US and Canadian consumers and vice versa.Thus, the US farmers who have heavily subsidized crops can sell their crops at extremely low prices by Mexican standards.Many would refer to the free trade agreement largely as a success; those people would mainly be big corporations that can afford to have long-distance customers.However, like almost all things, there is another side to this story.There are many people who would call NAFTA a complete flop.It has suppressed the poor and strengthened the rich.
As our group conversed with a panel at the US Embassy in Mexico City, I was shocked to find how credibly the diplomats could defend NAFTA.They overwhelmingly agreed that it was a success.Of course, they explained, there are always winners and losers in politics, and this time the winners definitely outnumbered the losers.They displayed impressive facts and explained how not only the “rich” are growing in number, but rather, the middle class is growing in Mexico.They argue that NAFTA is achieving equality in Mexico, rather than widening the gap between the rich and poor.
That was really the first place I had heard NAFTA presented in a positive light.It seems that everyone I have met here, whether they are professors or farmers would argue otherwise.The general consensus outside of the US Embassy is that NAFTA has done a lot more harm than good.The diplomats brought out convincing figures that highlighted how economically Mexico is winning from NAFTA.It is hard for me to know who to trust, but if I am to go with my gut, I can’t accept that NAFTA has more winners than losers.If I am to judge the situation by my own observation and experience, I have to say that I know a lot more losers than winners.
Raul Sanchez of Ixtlilco El Grande knows all about onions.They have been growing them in his pueblo for some time now, generally with much success.As we sat at the kitchen table during our homestay in Ixtlilco El Grande, he pointed proudly to and boasted humbly of the enormous cebollas (onions) hanging from a crossbeam in the roof, “those were grown here,” he stated.I would later learn that despite the impressive size and delicious taste of Ixtlilco onions, they won’t be selling the crop this year.Unfortunately, it is cheaper for them to let the onions rot in the ground than to pay the labor to harvest them and sell them in the market.
US farmers, due to advanced agricultural technology, can produce significantly more and significantly cheaper onions than Raul and the other farmers in Ixtlilco.As the cheap onions flood the Mexican market, consumers now expect onions to be cheaper than the local farmers can afford to sell.This reality has impacted me significantly more than the statistics of the US diplomats in Mexico City.For me, the effects of NAFTA are a perfect example of how globalization has affected specific people.I feel that I can easily tune out the affects of globalization while I am the US, but while I was in Ixtlilco I could not deny the traces of globalization on the small town.Through NAFTA’s affects on Ixtlilco, the political results of globalization have now become personal.
Goose, what you wrote about really struck me. I think NAFTA was put in place without consideration of small-town farmers and small businesses. It really benefits the largest corporations, the government, and the U.S. There has been a history of the Mexican government trying to gain as much from deals, while ignoring certain populations. The diplomats from the U.S. Embassy told us that we shoudn't just look at the effects of NAFTA on the U.S., but as well the inner problems the Mexican government has in the distribution of it's money throughout the country. Yes, Mexico, may be very successful economically overall, but is the economic benefit evenly spread out between the local farmers and businesses, or do only the big global corporations, or monopolistic companies like TelMex (Mexican telecommunication company) and PeMex (Mexican petroleum company) benefit in the end? An example of how some populations are left out of the economic advancement is when we took a day trip to an indigenous community called Amatlan.
On another note, I think that because of our U.S. privelege, can much more easily benefit from the deal of NAFTA, but given Mexico's economic conditions, appearance of crime, and bad reputation, it has been, according to the Registry for Migration Issues in Tepalcingo, very difficult for Mexico to export food and medicines to the U.S., but not as difficult for U.S. products to come in and for the U.S. to gain profit. And, although NAFTA does grant the farmers the opportunity to ship what they produce, they may not be making a profit off of it if they did, so the equality is not as mutual in the NAFTA agreement as it says on paper.
The U.S. Embassy focused on their panel that "competition is good". But, does it really? What does that say for the farmers in Ixtlilco who have a whole plantation of onions that are useless if the U.S. farmers can take advantage of the competition and sell it for cheaper? I think we need to re-analyze the definition of "good" in this case.
I like playing devil´s advocate, but what I think is more important here is that I do not know the truth. I think Vinnie made some good points about Mexico´s percieved disadvantages. One thing I might mention: what if Mexico were to become another United States, in terms of wealth, wealth distribution, and consumption? Sure it´s what many in power have wanted to happen, but if it does, could the world even support it? In no way am I arguing that we should limit Mexico more than the U.S., if it becomes an issue, we may only be able to limit ourselves
Thank you for your post! It's so interesting to see so many parallels between what we are learning on opposite sides of the world!
Two things struck me most about your observations:
1) The convincing nature of the Diplomat's figures and statistics about NAFTA. Throughout our time here we have met with many government officials or corporate officers, expecting them to be the "bad guys" almost, the victimizers. Often, we leave an exchange even more confused than we started because of efforts officials are making on the poor or the victimized or the underprivileged's behalf. Seems pretty hunky dory most of the time. It can be hard to decide what is rhetoric, what is genuine sincerity and what is somewhere in between.
2) The other thing that struck me were the similarities between the struggles of the Ixtlilco farmers and the ones we stayed with in Yasothorn Province, Thailand. Thailand has recently entered a trade agreement with China, believing that the Chinese market would be a huge opportunity of consumers for their products. However, the plan has essentially backfired and instead Chinese products have infiltrated the Thai market, giving Thai farmers a disadvantage on their "home turf." It also started with onions here!
Thank you again for your observations! It has been great to share perspectives on two different countries!
Raul Sanchez's case of being unable to sell crops because of agreements favoring some and not others, reminds me a lot of rice production and exportation process in Thailand, specifically as a result of the Green Revolution, which began in 1950, when the Thai government accepted bilateral aid from the US Department of Agriculture. The "Rice Variety Improvement Project" was formed, which promoted 46 rice species (out of thousnds of existing ones). The promotion of these species, specifically Jasmine 105, also came with large companies promoting the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, "efficient" water management, and at least one additional harvesting period. The goal was (and still is) high yeilds. However, the increased amount of fertilizer does not increase rice yeilds in the same proportion. "Estimated to be as much as 13-155% o pesticide's value, external costs include farmer's health, pesticide residues in food and the environment, and environmental impacts" (Vitoon Panyakul from Green Net and Green Peace South East Asia). I'm all over the place with this post, but you get the point: the government overlooks and exploits the poor for economic benefit and development. Benefit and development for whom?
I wanted to respond to your first-hand experience with the professional act of trickery. A few weeks ago we lived with a community that was living less than 1km from a goldmine. We were studying the impact of the mine on the surrounding villages and did quite a bit of research on the issue. The gold mine has only been in operation for 2 years but the effects are already apparent. Cyanide, Arsenic, Lead, Manganese as well as other chemicals and heavy metals have been found in the rivers. Although the implication of the gold mine as the culprit is obvious, no studies have been done which prove this as fact. Therefore, the mining company maintains that it is yet to cause any negative impact on the surrounding communities.
The company was aware of our presence in the community for the week following our exchange with them. The steps they took to attempt to prove their benefactor case to us was laughable. For example, a big issue during the dry season is that contaminated dust from the dirt roads onsite is blown down into the community. As a solution to this problem, the company claims that they water the roads daily to prevent dirt from drifting into the village - and they did so every day that we were there. When our group left, however, and I staid back to take some last photographs for our project, the road watering came to a halt, much like the villagers had predicted.
Josiah- Thank you for your post on NAFTA. it is amazing how similar development schemes in Mexico are to development schemes here in Thailand. I guess no matter where in the world you are, politics always influence development programs. Since the rich control the politics and policies, they always seem to be the ones who benefit and then later rave about all of the positive effects. similarly, her in Thailand the government along with companies such as Thai-Italian are developing dams along the Mekong. According to them, Thailand has not taken advantage of their access to the Mekong like other countries also along the river have, such as Laos or China. There is a giant development plan to build dams along the Mekong, many of which have already been built, that will primarily provide electricity to cities and more development projects, such as mines. These dams and mines severely impact the surrounding communities. In villages where these projects have already been built, the community members suffer from not being able to continue their way of life due to contaminated water and subsiding land. While the government and companies talk up all of the resources gained by these development projects they neglect to mention all of the sacrifices the villagers were forced to make in order to provide these resources. Given the pressure to expand and develop only economically, governments tend to think more about developing towards a better economy and often forget about all the lives that suffer for this "better economy".
I'd like to comment on what the title of your blog entry is addressing. Through increasing globalization, we have studied and observed how much of a profound Western presence exists here in Thailand. Through my limited time here, I have observed how Westerners and Western culture are idealized through media (Thai soap operas), beauty products, food, clothes, etc. In my opinion, this idea relates to the flooding of U.S. produce on the Mexican market, both influences speak to the influences of globalization.
In Thailand, pale white skin is idolized, whitening products are present on every shelf in a beauty supply aisle, and advertisements appear on television and on billboards promoting the attractiveness of pale skin. When I first arrived in Thailand I saw this as racially degrading, I felt disgusted that this ideal was somehow being perpetuated and that I was inextricably connected to the issue.
However, through time I have come to observe many instances that shed light on how the United States presence affects Thailand through globalization. These observations have made me question the hierarchical status of countries in the world and the issues surrounding "developed", "developing", and "undeveloped" countries.
Your NAFTA article struck a chord with me. I stayed in the same village (Na Nong Bong) as Tyler and saw how convincing a winning party can be. CIEE traveled to Na Nong Bong in order to write a human rights report for the community. Our first stop was an exchange with the gold mining company. I remember leaving there concerned that there were no human right violations and wondering what we would write about. The company wowed us with a power point presentation that, like your meeting at the US Embassy, was full of statics and facts that painted a picture that the mine was going above and beyond their duty to protect the local community. My perception of the company soon changed once I got to the village and met with villagers and experienced their issues. The Na Nong Bong Villager's community was clearly negatively affected by the mine. Their water was contaminated, crop yields were down, and people were diagnosed with cyanide poisoning. I think it is important to have the government and company perceptions but I now know to check these facts with those living with the direct results of their policies and projects.
I echo everything my fellow CIEE students have said before me. The parallels are very easy to see, and yet are not surprising when you think about the world on a global scale, with developing countries competing against developed ones. Over and over again in Thailand we have seen development schemes for the benefit of the Thai economy as a whole, which makes perfect sense when you think about Thailand's place in the world as a developing country. Its easy to look at the rising gold prices, which have risen over 200% in the past 5 years, and think that Thailand should expand its mining industry so that they will be able to compete in the global gold market. It makes sense for the Thai government to build the third largest potash mine in the world because currently, they have to import all the postash used in chemical fertilizers used by Thai farmers. Owning the third largest potash mine would not only decrease the Thai dependence on foreign potash, and strengthen the Thai economy. This pattern exists over and over again across the world, and while it makes sense on a global and national scale, these development projects uproot thousands of villagers and destroy their ways of life. The government seems to think its necessary for villagers to sacrfice for the good of the state, but who are they really to make that decision for anyone?
Why are Mexican onions more expensive, and the U.S. onions so damn cheap? I think we both know that the U.S. onions have the luxury of external costs. In reading about the U.S. presence in Mexico, I couldn't help but think about Mexico's presence in the U.S. Who is harvesting those onions in the U.S.? Is it machinery, or underpaid immigrant labor? Lately I've been thinking about how globalization has pitted people against each other. Does the immigrant laborer in the U.S. that picks the onions put his Mexican brother or sister out of business?
I hear echoes of the same story in Thailand as you have described in Mexico. The NAFTA between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada is similar to the Great Mekong Subregion development scheme here in Thailand. The countries of Thailand, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Burma continue signing agreements that take steps towards creating a single, unified economy in SE Asia.
Clearly something bigger is happening. Bigger than NAFTA, and bigger than GMS. Why do countries think that consolidating economies will be "better"?
As an extension to Cortney’s post, I want to first ditto the sentiments felt for diplomats, government officials and corporate officers. At times, I have found myself wanting to believe the sugar-coated words of the politicians, who supposedly advocate for the lower-class villagers. However, a healthy level of skepticism reminds me that they have an image to uphold and an agenda to keep.
However, I found myself thrown into an even deeper level of confusion and corruption in our last unit on potash mining in Udon Tani Province, Thailand. As I sat in a comfy air-conditioned room with 29 of my peers listening to the mining company’s “environmentally friendly plan” to execute their potash mine, I grew increasingly skeptical.
However, I was not prepared to be rushed off to the local village temple to meet with pro-mine villagers. While I am definitely one to seek out two sides of a story, (and I know that a potash mine would positively affect some villagers short term by providing jobs), I was unprepared for the blatant corruption and exploitation we witnessed in our exchange. Through talking with the pro-mine villagers, it was evident that they had been educated selectively on the positive effects of the mine. We later found out that they had been hand picked and paid by the company to come to this exchange in the first place.
It’s one thing to hear politicians and corporate officers attempt to obscure the truth, but I found it even more haunting to hear villagers who had obviously been taken advantage of, attempting to convince us that the very mine that would destroy them would be a positive development for their village.
Growing up in the States, I never heard about the negative side of NAFTA. Free trade was always presented as a positive thing. It wasn't until I got to college and attended a lecture by Al Rojas, one of the founders of United Farm Workers, that I started thinking more critically about trade and NAFTA and learning more about fair trade. Learning from a classroom in America is totally different than seeing the effects of free trade on the ground, however, just as you've said in your post. In America, I supported the fair trade movement, but was also skeptical... we buy a certain kind of chocolate with the fair trade label and feel good about ourselves for a bit, but is it actually doing anything? Is it really having an effect on local communities? What does it mean for the movement when McDonald's is using it as part of their ad campaign for their coffee? In Yasothorn Province during our unit on food, agriculture, trade, and organic farming, I began to see things differently. I saw how firsthand how huge the impact was of the local fair trade rice mill on the livelihood and quality of life for my host mom. I know that when I see an organic or fair-trade label on food in the American grocery store, I'll see my host mother's face and remember what it was like to be on her farm. But how can we bring these experiences to people back home?
We’ve clearly had a lot of the same experiences with government and corporate officials in Thailand and in Mexico. Government and investment capitalism tactics at information distribution seems to be the same everywhere. For me, this has illuminated just another way in which lack of balanced information is a global phenomenon. We’ve all learned that people have a right to information, as outlined in the ICCPR, but it may be the biggest lack that we’ve seen in every single community that we have visited. It’s been hard to see, too, because sometimes villagers look to us to supply them with that information (since we are often perceived as highly educated farang with all the right answers) and we have been unable to do so. I think we take for granted all the information that is available to us in the United States. We have access to and information about how our government works, how to participate in our government, what the effects chemical fertilizers have, even things like sex education we take for granted. I never thought about how passionate I was about education until I came here and participated in the CIEE alternative learning model and seen this enormous lack of information to most communities we’ve visited. It’s opened my eyes to some priorities that I didn’t even know I had.
Goose, what you wrote about really struck me. I think NAFTA was put in place without consideration of small-town farmers and small businesses. It really benefits the largest corporations, the government, and the U.S. There has been a history of the Mexican government trying to gain as much from deals, while ignoring certain populations. The diplomats from the U.S. Embassy told us that we shoudn't just look at the effects of NAFTA on the U.S., but as well the inner problems the Mexican government has in the distribution of it's money throughout the country. Yes, Mexico, may be very successful economically overall, but is the economic benefit evenly spread out between the local farmers and businesses, or do only the big global corporations, or monopolistic companies like TelMex (Mexican telecommunication company) and PeMex (Mexican petroleum company) benefit in the end? An example of how some populations are left out of the economic advancement is when we took a day trip to an indigenous community called Amatlan.
ResponderEliminarOn another note, I think that because of our U.S. privelege, can much more easily benefit from the deal of NAFTA, but given Mexico's economic conditions, appearance of crime, and bad reputation, it has been, according to the Registry for Migration Issues in Tepalcingo, very difficult for Mexico to export food and medicines to the U.S., but not as difficult for U.S. products to come in and for the U.S. to gain profit. And, although NAFTA does grant the farmers the opportunity to ship what they produce, they may not be making a profit off of it if they did, so the equality is not as mutual in the NAFTA agreement as it says on paper.
The U.S. Embassy focused on their panel that "competition is good". But, does it really? What does that say for the farmers in Ixtlilco who have a whole plantation of onions that are useless if the U.S. farmers can take advantage of the competition and sell it for cheaper? I think we need to re-analyze the definition of "good" in this case.
Just to play devils advocate: Onions v. Tomatos?
ResponderEliminarWhy should it matter? And aren't broad stats better than annecdotes relating to particular people?
I like playing devil´s advocate, but what I think is more important here is that I do not know the truth. I think Vinnie made some good points about Mexico´s percieved disadvantages. One thing I might mention: what if Mexico were to become another United States, in terms of wealth, wealth distribution, and consumption? Sure it´s what many in power have wanted to happen, but if it does, could the world even support it? In no way am I arguing that we should limit Mexico more than the U.S., if it becomes an issue, we may only be able to limit ourselves
ResponderEliminarJosiah-
ResponderEliminarThank you for your post! It's so interesting to see so many parallels between what we are learning on opposite sides of the world!
Two things struck me most about your observations:
1) The convincing nature of the Diplomat's figures and statistics about NAFTA. Throughout our time here we have met with many government officials or corporate officers, expecting them to be the "bad guys" almost, the victimizers. Often, we leave an exchange even more confused than we started because of efforts officials are making on the poor or the victimized or the underprivileged's behalf. Seems pretty hunky dory most of the time. It can be hard to decide what is rhetoric, what is genuine sincerity and what is somewhere in between.
2) The other thing that struck me were the similarities between the struggles of the Ixtlilco farmers and the ones we stayed with in Yasothorn Province, Thailand. Thailand has recently entered a trade agreement with China, believing that the Chinese market would be a huge opportunity of consumers for their products. However, the plan has essentially backfired and instead Chinese products have infiltrated the Thai market, giving Thai farmers a disadvantage on their "home turf." It also started with onions here!
Thank you again for your observations! It has been great to share perspectives on two different countries!
-Cortney
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarRaul Sanchez's case of being unable to sell crops because of agreements favoring some and not others, reminds me a lot of rice production and exportation process in Thailand, specifically as a result of the Green Revolution, which began in 1950, when the Thai government accepted bilateral aid from the US Department of Agriculture. The "Rice Variety Improvement Project" was formed, which promoted 46 rice species (out of thousnds of existing ones). The promotion of these species, specifically Jasmine 105, also came with large companies promoting the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, "efficient" water management, and at least one additional harvesting period. The goal was (and still is) high yeilds. However, the increased amount of fertilizer does not increase rice yeilds in the same proportion. "Estimated to be as much as 13-155% o pesticide's value, external costs include farmer's health, pesticide residues in food and the environment, and environmental impacts" (Vitoon Panyakul from Green Net and Green Peace South East Asia). I'm all over the place with this post, but you get the point: the government overlooks and exploits the poor for economic benefit and development. Benefit and development for whom?
ResponderEliminar--Sarah Robinson
CIEE Thailand Spring 2009
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarHola Goose,
ResponderEliminarI wanted to respond to your first-hand experience with the professional act of trickery. A few weeks ago we lived with a community that was living less than 1km from a goldmine. We were studying the impact of the mine on the surrounding villages and did quite a bit of research on the issue. The gold mine has only been in operation for 2 years but the effects are already apparent. Cyanide, Arsenic, Lead, Manganese as well as other chemicals and heavy metals have been found in the rivers. Although the implication of the gold mine as the culprit is obvious, no studies have been done which prove this as fact. Therefore, the mining company maintains that it is yet to cause any negative impact on the surrounding communities.
The company was aware of our presence in the community for the week following our exchange with them. The steps they took to attempt to prove their benefactor case to us was laughable. For example, a big issue during the dry season is that contaminated dust from the dirt roads onsite is blown down into the community. As a solution to this problem, the company claims that they water the roads daily to prevent dirt from drifting into the village - and they did so every day that we were there. When our group left, however, and I staid back to take some last photographs for our project, the road watering came to a halt, much like the villagers had predicted.
Tyler Jackson, CIEE Thailand
Josiah-
ResponderEliminarThank you for your post on NAFTA. it is amazing how similar development schemes in Mexico are to development schemes here in Thailand. I guess no matter where in the world you are, politics always influence development programs. Since the rich control the politics and policies, they always seem to be the ones who benefit and then later rave about all of the positive effects. similarly, her in Thailand the government along with companies such as Thai-Italian are developing dams along the Mekong. According to them, Thailand has not taken advantage of their access to the Mekong like other countries also along the river have, such as Laos or China. There is a giant development plan to build dams along the Mekong, many of which have already been built, that will primarily provide electricity to cities and more development projects, such as mines. These dams and mines severely impact the surrounding communities. In villages where these projects have already been built, the community members suffer from not being able to continue their way of life due to contaminated water and subsiding land. While the government and companies talk up all of the resources gained by these development projects they neglect to mention all of the sacrifices the villagers were forced to make in order to provide these resources. Given the pressure to expand and develop only economically, governments tend to think more about developing towards a better economy and often forget about all the lives that suffer for this "better economy".
Josiah,
ResponderEliminarI'd like to comment on what the title of your blog entry is addressing. Through increasing globalization, we have studied and observed how much of a profound Western presence exists here in Thailand. Through my limited time here, I have observed how Westerners and Western culture are idealized through media (Thai soap operas), beauty products, food, clothes, etc. In my opinion, this idea relates to the flooding of U.S. produce on the Mexican market, both influences speak to the influences of globalization.
In Thailand, pale white skin is idolized, whitening products are present on every shelf in a beauty supply aisle, and advertisements appear on television and on billboards promoting the attractiveness of pale skin. When I first arrived in Thailand I saw this as racially degrading, I felt disgusted that this ideal was somehow being perpetuated and that I was inextricably connected to the issue.
However, through time I have come to observe many instances that shed light on how the United States presence affects Thailand through globalization. These observations have made me question the hierarchical status of countries in the world and the issues surrounding "developed", "developing", and "undeveloped" countries.
Eliza Leavitt- CIEE Thailand
Josiah,
ResponderEliminarYour NAFTA article struck a chord with me. I stayed in the same village (Na Nong Bong) as Tyler and saw how convincing a winning party can be. CIEE traveled to Na Nong Bong in order to write a human rights report for the community. Our first stop was an exchange with the gold mining company. I remember leaving there concerned that there were no human right violations and wondering what we would write about. The company wowed us with a power point presentation that, like your meeting at the US Embassy, was full of statics and facts that painted a picture that the mine was going above and beyond their duty to protect the local community. My perception of the company soon changed once I got to the village and met with villagers and experienced their issues. The Na Nong Bong Villager's community was clearly negatively affected by the mine. Their water was contaminated, crop yields were down, and people were diagnosed with cyanide poisoning. I think it is important to have the government and company perceptions but I now know to check these facts with those living with the direct results of their policies and projects.
-Shannon Hurley, CIEE Thailand
Josiah,
ResponderEliminarI echo everything my fellow CIEE students have said before me. The parallels are very easy to see, and yet are not surprising when you think about the world on a global scale, with developing countries competing against developed ones. Over and over again in Thailand we have seen development schemes for the benefit of the Thai economy as a whole, which makes perfect sense when you think about Thailand's place in the world as a developing country. Its easy to look at the rising gold prices, which have risen over 200% in the past 5 years, and think that Thailand should expand its mining industry so that they will be able to compete in the global gold market. It makes sense for the Thai government to build the third largest potash mine in the world because currently, they have to import all the postash used in chemical fertilizers used by Thai farmers. Owning the third largest potash mine would not only decrease the Thai dependence on foreign potash, and strengthen the Thai economy. This pattern exists over and over again across the world, and while it makes sense on a global and national scale, these development projects uproot thousands of villagers and destroy their ways of life. The government seems to think its necessary for villagers to sacrfice for the good of the state, but who are they really to make that decision for anyone?
-Melissa M
Why are Mexican onions more expensive, and the U.S. onions so damn cheap? I think we both know that the U.S. onions have the luxury of external costs. In reading about the U.S. presence in Mexico, I couldn't help but think about Mexico's presence in the U.S. Who is harvesting those onions in the U.S.? Is it machinery, or underpaid immigrant labor? Lately I've been thinking about how globalization has pitted people against each other. Does the immigrant laborer in the U.S. that picks the onions put his Mexican brother or sister out of business?
ResponderEliminarI hear echoes of the same story in Thailand as you have described in Mexico. The NAFTA between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada is similar to the Great Mekong Subregion development scheme here in Thailand. The countries of Thailand, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Burma continue signing agreements that take steps towards creating a single, unified economy in SE Asia.
Clearly something bigger is happening. Bigger than NAFTA, and bigger than GMS. Why do countries think that consolidating economies will be "better"?
Hi Josiah,
ResponderEliminarAs an extension to Cortney’s post, I want to first ditto the sentiments felt for diplomats, government officials and corporate officers. At times, I have found myself wanting to believe the sugar-coated words of the politicians, who supposedly advocate for the lower-class villagers. However, a healthy level of skepticism reminds me that they have an image to uphold and an agenda to keep.
However, I found myself thrown into an even deeper level of confusion and corruption in our last unit on potash mining in Udon Tani Province, Thailand. As I sat in a comfy air-conditioned room with 29 of my peers listening to the mining company’s “environmentally friendly plan” to execute their potash mine, I grew increasingly skeptical.
However, I was not prepared to be rushed off to the local village temple to meet with pro-mine villagers. While I am definitely one to seek out two sides of a story, (and I know that a potash mine would positively affect some villagers short term by providing jobs), I was unprepared for the blatant corruption and exploitation we witnessed in our exchange. Through talking with the pro-mine villagers, it was evident that they had been educated selectively on the positive effects of the mine. We later found out that they had been hand picked and paid by the company to come to this exchange in the first place.
It’s one thing to hear politicians and corporate officers attempt to obscure the truth, but I found it even more haunting to hear villagers who had obviously been taken advantage of, attempting to convince us that the very mine that would destroy them would be a positive development for their village.
Growing up in the States, I never heard about the negative side of NAFTA. Free trade was always presented as a positive thing. It wasn't until I got to college and attended a lecture by Al Rojas, one of the founders of United Farm Workers, that I started thinking more critically about trade and NAFTA and learning more about fair trade. Learning from a classroom in America is totally different than seeing the effects of free trade on the ground, however, just as you've said in your post. In America, I supported the fair trade movement, but was also skeptical... we buy a certain kind of chocolate with the fair trade label and feel good about ourselves for a bit, but is it actually doing anything? Is it really having an effect on local communities? What does it mean for the movement when McDonald's is using it as part of their ad campaign for their coffee? In Yasothorn Province during our unit on food, agriculture, trade, and organic farming, I began to see things differently. I saw how firsthand how huge the impact was of the local fair trade rice mill on the livelihood and quality of life for my host mom. I know that when I see an organic or fair-trade label on food in the American grocery store, I'll see my host mother's face and remember what it was like to be on her farm. But how can we bring these experiences to people back home?
ResponderEliminar--Kelsey Birza, CIEE Thailand
We’ve clearly had a lot of the same experiences with government and corporate officials in Thailand and in Mexico. Government and investment capitalism tactics at information distribution seems to be the same everywhere. For me, this has illuminated just another way in which lack of balanced information is a global phenomenon. We’ve all learned that people have a right to information, as outlined in the ICCPR, but it may be the biggest lack that we’ve seen in every single community that we have visited. It’s been hard to see, too, because sometimes villagers look to us to supply them with that information (since we are often perceived as highly educated farang with all the right answers) and we have been unable to do so. I think we take for granted all the information that is available to us in the United States. We have access to and information about how our government works, how to participate in our government, what the effects chemical fertilizers have, even things like sex education we take for granted. I never thought about how passionate I was about education until I came here and participated in the CIEE alternative learning model and seen this enormous lack of information to most communities we’ve visited. It’s opened my eyes to some priorities that I didn’t even know I had.
ResponderEliminar