1108 Mexican Trucks and WTO
Within the last thirty days, two milestones were reached in the erosion of United Statessovereignty and almost no one noticed. On July 6th, an accord between theU.S. andMexico was announced which opened American highways toMexico’s trucking companies. A few days later both countries were informed that the World Trade Organization (WTO) had ruled againstU.S. laws regarding labeling of imported foods.
The trucking agreement is a loose end left over from the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In 1995, citing safety issues, theClintonadministration blocked Mexican trucks from American highways beyond twenty-five miles from the border.
According to the new agreement, Mexican truckers will be transporting goods to and from American locations without delivering between destinations within theU.S. The agreement also calls for them to meet American safety standards, be electronically monitored for breaks and be able to speak English. In return for surrendering our transportation protections,Mexicowill lift tariffs and allow our trucks privileges on her roads as well.
The WTO ruling was the end result of a U.S.-Mexico tuna dispute which began twenty years ago. We stopped importingMexico’s tuna in 1991 because it lacked “dolphin safe” labeling. By 2009,Mexicohad filed a complaint with the WTO claiming that the American labeling requirements constituted unfair trade restrictions.
According to the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Board, theU.S.government does not have a sovereign legal right to require Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) because it violates free trade agreements. What makes this decision even more repugnant is that the Board performs its functions in secret and cannot be vetoed by any member nation.
Both the trucking accord and the WTO ruling present individual problems of their own. Concerns about Mexican trucking companies undercutting competition and third world drivers having free access to American roads have not gone away. NeitherWashingtonnorMexico Cityhave trustworthy records when it comes to fulfilling mutual obligations. There is no reason to assume that this agreement’s safety provisions will be any more effective.
The freedom of Americans to know where their food comes from has not changed either. Right now the Food and Drug Administration inspects only a tiny portion of imports. Without COOL, one more safety net is lost.
There are some other more basic threats which both of these developments represent. One of the most fundamental functions of our constitutional government is protection from harm. At a time when illegal immigrants continue to breach our southern border in droves, Mexican drug cartels control American territory and terrorism continues to spread, the last thing we need is open transportation corridors. With most of our fruits, vegetables and seafood being imported, the last thing consumers need is less information about what they are eating.
The core issue is National sovereignty over foreign meddling through the supremacy of federal law. The Constitution of theUnited Statesgrants only Congress the right to control commerce with other nations. That same document grants the Supreme Court of theUnited Statesfinal judicial authority for Americans. American participation in international economic relationships does not imply a requirement of submission to harmful trade practices.
These latest two developments demonstrate that NAFTA and our membership in the WTO have the effect of subordinating our sovereignty to international oversight, at least in the eyes of the so-called “international community”. Americadid not become great by serving foreign powers. She will die if she continues to give away her independence one treaty at a time.