After simmering on the back burner for many years, suddenly the issue
of Mexican trucks has come to a boil for organizations as varied as
the Teamsters, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the
Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and the John Birch Society. Just this past
few days the first one or two Mexican trucks have made deliveries deep
within the United States.
The issue of Mexican trucks is a revealing aspect of the process whereby
the United States is being merged with Mexico and Canada on the basis
of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the 2005
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) to form what
is popularly known as the North American Union (NAU).
(Article continues below)
In May the House voted 411 to 3 in favor of stopping the Bush administration’s
proposed pilot program of allowing 100 Mexican trucking companies to
begin making deliveries of goods throughout the United States. Then,
on July 24, the House added an amendment by voice vote to H.R. 3074
(Appropriations for Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development), stating:
Amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used to establish or
implement a cross-border motor carrier demonstration or pilot project
or program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond
the commerical zones on the United States-Mexico border. (Congressional
Record, H8347, July 24, 2007)
The Senate is expected to vote tomorrow (Sep. 12) on whether to add
a similar amendment to their version of H.R. 3074. [UPDATE: At 7 PM
on Sept. 11, the
Senate approved an amendment to prohibit a pilot program for Mexican
trucks by a
vote of 74 to 23.] In a related development, on August 31 the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied
an emergency stay sought by the Teamsters union, the Sierra Club,
and Public Citizen to halt the start of the pilot program. In general,
there is widespread opposition to permitting Mexican trucks to deliver
goods throughout the U.S. based on concerns over national security,
highway safety, and jobs.
Nevertheless, virtually all of the public debate over the Mexican trucks
issue is missing the main point. Congress created this problem by approving
the NAFTA agreement in 1993, which created NAFTA institutions, like
the NAFTA Secretariat, with the power to overrule both the U.S. Congress
and U.S. Courts. The NAFTA Secretariat proudly describes its
supranational status as follows:
The NAFTA Secretariat is a unique organization established
pursuant to Article 2002 of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). It administers the mechanisms specified under the NAFTA
to resolve trade disputes between national industries and/or governments
in a fair, timely and impartial manner. (emphasis added)
The NAFTA agreement also included provisions for trade in "cross-border
services," such as trucking services. Although the agreement provided
the basis in principle for Mexican trucking firms to begin making deliveries
throughout the U.S. immediately, Annex I of the agreement delayed authorization
for Mexican cross-border trucking services until the end of 1995. After
1995 the U.S. refused to permit Mexican truck deliveries to begin.
Mexico then appealed to a NAFTA "Arbitral Panel," authorized
by Chapter 20 of the NAFTA agreement. In its final
report on February 6, 2001, the panel concluded:
On the basis of the analysis set out above, the Panel unanimously
determines that the U.S. blanket refusal to review and consider for
approval any Mexican-owned carrier applications for authority to provide
cross-border trucking services was and remains a breach of the U.S.
obligations under Annex I (reservations for existing measures and
liberalization commitments), Article 1202 (national treatment for
cross-border services), and Article 1203 (most-favored nation treatment
for cross-border services) of NAFTA.
Although Congress, the Teamsters, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen are trying hard to stop
the Mexican truck pilot program on the basis of technical exceptions
to the NAFTA agreement, they will very likely be unable to prevail in
the long run. The overriding problem is that Congress set up NAFTA entities,
such as the NAFTA Secretariat, tribunals and arbitral panels, superior
to Congress in authority. Since the Mexican trucks issue is not the
first, nor will it be the last, important issue that NAFTA institutions
have been empowered to decide for us, Congress needs to make use of
NAFTA’s Article
2205:
A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides
written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws,
the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.
Congress should vote to give notice to Mexico and Canada that the U.S.
is withdrawing from NAFTA. Then Congress would be free to legislate
to preserve our national security, public safety, and American jobs
without being overruled by NAFTA panels. And, more importantly, U.S.
withdrawal from NAFTA would destroy the very framework of the whole
North American Union merger process.
To help get the ball rolling on repealing NAFTA by withdrawing from
it, the John Birch Society has made
available online a
model "Repeal NAFTA" resolution for state legislatures.
We expect many states to adopt this type of resolution in 2008. A similar
campaign in 2007 to block the North American Union led to the introduction
of anti-NAU resolutions in eighteen
states. In three states both houses passed their anti-NAU resolution.
In three other states one house passed such a resolution.
Yahoo! MyWeb
