Man: You mentioned that people with power probably don't like it that the G.A.T.T. treaty got onto the internet. It just emphasized for me how these international trade agreements are being forced on us, and yet nobody even knows what they're about. I'm wondering what you think of that?
Chomsky: Well, plenty of people know what they're about--there are plenty of people working for big corporations who know what the G.A.T.T. treaty is about, for example. But you're right, the general population here doesn't have the slightest idea bout it--I mean, overwhelmingly the general population of the United States hasn't even heard of G.A.T.T., and certainly they don't know what its likely effects are going to be. [G.A.T.T. was first established in 1947, but the "Uruguay Round" of negotiations to modify it concluded in December 1993; the treaty then was signed in April 1994.]
What do I think of that? I think it's ridiculous--grotesque, in fact. Look, G.A.T.T. is something of major significance. The idea that it's going to be rammed through Congress on a fast track without public discussion just shows that anything resembling democracy in the United States has completely collapsed. So whatever one thinks about G.A.T.T., at least it should be a topic for the general public to become informed about, and to investigate, and to look at, and think about carefully. That much is easy.
If you ask what should happen in that public discussion--well, if that public discussion ever comes along, I'll be glad to say what I think. And what I think is in fact mixed. It's like N.A.F.T.A.: I don't know of anyone who was opposed to a North American trade agreement in principle--the question was, what kind? So before N.A.F.T.A. got passed [in 1993], mainstream groups like the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment--can't get more centrist than that--came out with very sharp and intelligent critiques of the Executive version of N.A.F.T.A., the one that finally went through. And they pointed out that in fact N.A.F.T.A. was designed to be an investor rights agreement, not a "free trade" agreement--and that it was going to drive the economies of each of the three participating countries [the U.S., Canada and Mexico] down towards a kind of low-wage, low-growth equilibrium; they didn't say it of course, but it'll also be a high-profit equilibrium. And they suggested very constructive alternatives.
Well, those sorts of constructive critiques never even entered the mainstream discussion about N.A.F.T.A. here: all you ever heard in the media was, "Crazy jingoists don't like Mexican workers."
The same was true of the American labor movement: its proposals were nothing like what was constantly being denounced in the press with virtually 100 percent uniformity. The Labor Advisory Committee, for example--which by law is required to give its opinion on these things, but was illegally cut out of the discussion--came out with quite a constructive report on N.A.F.T.A.: it wasn't against an agreement, it was against that agreement. In fact, the story of the Labor Advisory Committee report tells you a lot about the way that N.A.F.T.A. was passed in the U.S., a lot about American democracy.
Twenty years ago, Congress enacted a Trade Act requiring that before any trade-related legislation or treaty is passed, there has to be consultation with a "Labor Advisory Committee" they set up which is based in the unions, such as they are. That's by law: the Labor Advisory Committee has to give an analysis and a critique of any American trade-related issue, so obviously that would include N.A.F.T.A. Well, the Labor Advisory Committee has to give an analysis and a critique of any American trade-related issue, so obviously that would include N.A.F.T.A. Well, the labor Advisory Committee was informed by the Clinton White House that their report was due on September 9th; they were not given an inkling of what was in the treaty until September 8th--so obviously they couldn't even convene to meet. Then on top of that, there weren't even given the whole text of the treaty--it's this huge treaty, hundreds and hundreds of pages.
But somehow they did manage to write a response to it anyway, and it was a very angry response--both because of the utter contempt for democracy revealed by these maneuvers, but also because from the glimmerings of what they could get out of N.A.F.T.A. when they sort of flipped through it for a couple of hours, it was obvious that this thing was just going to have a devastating effect on American labor, and probably also a devastating effect on Mexican labor too, though of course it will be highly beneficial to American investors, and probably also to Mexican investors. It's also certain to have a highly destructive effect on the environment--because its laws supersede federal and state legislation. So obviously there are really major issues here, crucially important issues, which in a functioning democracy would have been the subject of intensive public consideration and debate.
Actually, if you looked closely, even N.A.F.T.A.'s advocates conceded that it was probably going to harm the majority of the populations of the three countries. For instance, its advocates in the United States were saying, "It's really good, it'll only harm semi-skilled workers"--footnote: 70 percent of the workforce. As a matter of fact, after N.A.F.T.A. was safely passed, the New York Times did their first analysis of its predicted effects in the New York region: it was a very upbeat article talking about how terrific it was going to be for corporate lawyers, and P.R. firms and so on. And then there was a footnote there as well. It said, well, everyone can't gain, there'll also be some losers: "women, blacks, Hispanics, and semi-skilled labor"--in other words, most of the people of New York. But you can't have everything. And those were the advocates.
In fact, it's kind of striking that about a day or two after N.A.F.T.A was passed, the Senate approved the most onerous crime bill in U.S. history [the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act], which the House then made even worse. Now, I don't know if that was just a symbolic coincidence or what--but it makes sense. I mean, N.A.F.T.A. was clearly going to have the effect of reducing wages for probably three-quarters of the American population, and it's going to make a lot more of the population superfluous from the point of view of profits--so the Crime Bill just will take care of a lot of them, by throwing them in jail.
