Posted by nform0 at 2/21/08 11:57 a.m.

"We feel it is unacceptable to allow the university community to be manipulated by the fabricated language of Mr. Rios and we see it as a necessity to expose the fact that humans have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of NAFTA," said Sean O'Neill, a sophomore sociology major at Seattle University.

What does that mean? What is "fabricated language?"

Some humans will always suffer and some will benefit from any policy. That's why you have to weigh the costs and benefits. I'm sure Mr. O'Neill will weigh those issues in a rational and balanced way at the protest...

Posted by unregistered user at 2/21/08 12:33 p.m.

I imagine what Mr. O'Neill was referring to was that suffering and poverty among those who are less blessed economically, especially among members of indigenous communities, has been magnified rather than mitigated by policies like NAFTA. These "free trade" policies have often served to create much greater inequality, both here in the US and abroad. Much of the suffering has been created in the agrarian communities of Mexico and Central America, where people are no longer able to make a living by farming as a result of a massive influx of subsidized American agricultural goods. And this is just one of the many issues involved. No doubt Mr. Rios will try and present facts and figures about "growth" in Mexico that will serve to prove that wealth has increased in that country, but will hide the fact that it has been concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few at the the top of the economic food chain.

However, I'm sure if you go to the event yourself and talk to Mr. O'Neill, he will be able to articulate his points with much more clarity than I have, as he is in my experience a both a "rational and balanced" person as well as an intelligent and well-spoken leader in his community.

Posted by Will in Seattle at 2/21/08 1:47 p.m.

NAFTA was and is one of the biggest mistakes Clinton ever agreed to, as a Bush idea.

Be glad when all three are gone.

Posted by nform0 at 2/21/08 7:39 p.m.

"Much of the suffering has been created in the agrarian communities of Mexico and Central America, where people are no longer able to make a living by farming as a result of a massive influx of subsidized American agricultural goods. And this is just one of the many issues involved. No doubt Mr. Rios will try and present facts and figures about "growth" in Mexico that will serve to prove that wealth has increased in that country, but will hide the fact that it has been concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few at the the top of the economic food chain."

Sounds like a good debate. However, I have been to a few protests, and they generally have not been long on nuance or honest engagement with the arguments of the other side (e.g. Jena 6 rally). I hope you're right in the case of this one, but the tone of the quotation "We feel it is unacceptable to ALLOW the university community to be manipulated..." suggests that maybe Mr. O'Neill would not even like to allow the university to give a forum to people with whom he disagrees.

Posted by Onyotaka Lukwe at 2/23/08 8:51 a.m.

Well, one story is that NAFTA was a kind of different, gentler animal when Clinton got everyone on board- but, the indigenous communities saw right through its predictable outcome. Their position now seems to be that the money being sent to fight the drug war is also a way to fund anti-indigenous paramilitaries on behalf of Calderon and pro-NAFTA policy, re-igniting another potentially huge human rights crisis. It's quickly reaching the flash point. It's true, though, that some of the tactics seen in the U.S. public discourse haven't helped, but that really is pretty minor segments of the advocacy, unfortunately, it tends to attract a disproportionate amount of negative attention, and only gives the invested reasons to not participate in further discussion.