Free trade goes both ways: Mexico slaps tariffs on United States for denying its trucks access

NAFTA was ratified by the U.S. Congress 17 years ago. Mexican truckers, however, are still not allowed access into the United States, a rather clear breach of the free-trade agreement.


It also unnecessarily raises the cost of products sold in the United States, due to the cumbersome procedures involved in moving Mexican goods over the border and onto U.S. rigs.


Now Mexico has offered a response, according to Bloomberg: Raising tariffs on a range of products, most notably pork and oranges. This marks that Mexico's patience with the U.S. non-compliance is running thin, and the new tariffs, if enacted, will have major consequences for U.S. companies. 


While the issue may be considered a minor one when put in perspective - all in all, NAFTA did succeed in drastically expanding U.S.-Canadian-Mexican trade - it has remained a very sore issue for Mexico, especially given the official justification: Mexican trucks are said to be not as safe as U.S. trucks, which is false. 

The real issue, of course, is jobs: The Democrats are pressured by the Teamsters Union to maintain the ban in order to protect them from competition by a lower-paid and highly competitive trucking fleet. While understandable from the point of view of the Teamsters, this argument does not hold water if seen from the lens of NAFTA: Yes, there will be winners and losers as a consequence of NAFTA, and Mexico certainly has seen its share of both, as has the U.S., but all in all the goal is to stimulate trade and to lower prices on goods and services. 


There are a host of arguments against and in favor of "free-trade" initiatives - the term warrants to be put them in brackets from time to time, as it is somewhat of a euphemism, given that some national sectors, particularly those still receiving subsidies, tend to reap proportionate benefits from the lowering of tariffs - the bottom line remains: If you sign up to a free-trade agreement, you better stick to it. The argument that Mexican truckers are unsafe is simply not true: On the contrary, judging from date from a pilot project, Mexican trucks have far better safety records than U.S. trucks.


For more on the issue, the Web site-blog Mexicotrucker.com offers much information in English from the much-neglected Mexican side. For the Teamsters', here.

Killer lines from El Universal editorial pages...

El Universal really knocks itself loose on today's editorial pages. The otherwise fairly center-right paper has an excellent editorial lauding the Supreme Court's decision and its standing up for the secular state. I even find myself agreeing with Ricardo Alemán, for once. 


But the best lines in response to the hateful and bigoted utterances from cardinal Sandoval - "Would you like to be adopted by a pair of lesbians or fags?" - are the following:


Salvador García Soto: "And would you like to be adopted by a cardinal? I would not."


José Cárdenas: "Better to put a child in the hands of gays rather than in the hands of Paulette's parents."

Espino confirms he is "exploring" presidential bid.

As predicted, former PAN president Manuel Espino finally declared that he is "exploring" the possibility of being a candidate for the presidency in 2010 - on the PAN label. This declaration comes immediately ahead of today's vote in the party's National Executive Committee (CEN) on whether Espino should be expelled from the party, nominally given his criticism of certain recent PAN candidates, and the situation as such is rather remarkable. 


Espino claims to have created an organization with presence in 16 key states, composed of more than 60,000 sympathizers, yet repeats he will not resign from the PAN, and that the process that may lead to his expulsion is the product of pressure from president Felipe Calderón. Given the animosity that exists between the two men, I find it hard not to agree with this sentiment. 

Church interferences breach the Constitution, yet may also have legal consequences.

Juan Sandoval íñiguez, the arch conservative cardinal of Guadalajara, yesterday repeated his outrageous claims that the Supreme Court was "bribed" by Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard in order to accept the constitutionality of gay marriages and, it was declared yesterday afternoon, gay adoptions. 

This may now have legal consequences. Ebrard deemed it "reprehensible and unacceptable" that a man with the rank of cardinal would so easily hurl around such grave accusations.:

"What Sandoval íñiguez has said, accusing ministers [of the court] of receiving gifts and other things, he will have to provove, because it is that serious that a bishop of the church, or anyone, discredits the courts in such a manner.... what I would say to the cardinal is: Prove it, or retract it."

The Supreme Court is understandably upset by these claims of corruption, and responded on its own with a unanimous declaration (the earlier vote was a whopping 9-2) that criticized the church claims, and backed Supreme Court Judge Sergio A. Valls Hernández calls for legal repercussions. 
Don't expect this anytime soon. The hierarchy of the church, so out of touch with reality on a host of different levels, has always responded to criticism by playing the role of the victim, arguing it is only commenting on moral or religious affairs, not political ones, which has more often than not been a blatant lie. 

Article 130 of the Constitution states that the clergy "cannot, in public acts, or through religious propaganda, oppose the laws of the country or its institutions."

The church's highest spokesperson, Hugo Valdemar, in an interview in the church organ Desde el Fe, recently clamored that "God free us from a fascist party like the PRD."

It gets worse. The archdioceses in a communique said that "those who are baptized have the moral obligation to exercise in the next elections a serious an responsible vote" - that is, explicitly telling catholics not to vote for the PRD. 

Clearly the church has no absolute respect for the spirit of the law, yet if Ebrard and the Supreme Court respond to their irresponsible claims of corruption, which denigrates and undermines the institutions of Mexican democracy, with legal moves, the church may be forced to show respect for the letter of the law. It is well overdue. 

Ceser Nava, President of PAN, stupidly and utterly illogically noted that the Supreme Court decision is contrary to the Mexican constitution - which is absurd, as the very ruling of the Court just stated that gay marriages are not unconstitutional - yet that one has the obligation to comply with the ruling.