As the NY Times suggests, in the short and medium run, Mexican companies are not even considering competing in the US transportation market. The US market is too complex for most Mexican capitalists in the business. Despite all risks and uncertainties, their business in Mexico is safer and more profitable, since they already know their way around. Why, then, has this been blown out of proportion in the US? The likely direct impact on the livelihood of US drivers doesn't seem to call for it. And, related to this, road safety cannot be a significant issue either. IMHO, the teamsters would be better prepared to face future challenges if, instead of leading alarmist campaigns, start rehearsing the International (both in English and Spanish).
I mean, seriously, try and figure out how to join forces with workers south of the border.
Can the teamsters see this? I would think so. So, why the campaign in the US Senate? Can anyone explain? Are the Republicans really so smart that they've managed to have the Democrats set themselves up as Hispanic haters vis the coming Congressional elections? In Mexico, the Senate decision is perceived as sheer racism. This permeates the Mexican opinion abroad via the Hispanic TV networks and word of mouth. If ever Mexican truckers were to operate in the US, they would have to abide by the US standards, period. These standards would be zealously enforced by the corresponding federal agency and, I suppose, by each state. I can envision some sort of racial/license plate profiling a la NJ Turnpike throughout the US. No Mexican capitalist in her right mind would risk losses that are so predictable.
In Mexico, the level of rhetorical noise is increasing. Fox declared today, it'll be tit for tat. No US trucks in Mexico either. (That should hurt the teamsters more if their interests are so merged with those of the US truck owners. No?) Apparently, US unions and the Democratic Party are alienating Mexicans. The heroes are Bush, McCain, and even Trent Lott! Resentment is building because the provisions of NAFTA dealing with farm products have also been blocked by US interests. That, on top of agro-NAFTA provisions being completely one-sided in favor of US big farmers.
Every time there's a provision of NAFTA that may affect a tiny interest in the US, the wheels of NAFTA stop. If it is cereals from the Midwest into Mexico, no problem -- US corn is flooding the Mexican market. If it is Mex-veggies into the US, they don't comply with the high standards of the US consumer market. US agro products and, more generally, the fall of tariffs on corn, coffee, and other agricultural products are hitting real hard the little is left of subsistence and small agro production in Mexico.
In the Mexican sugar industry, this has lead to a serious mess. For decades, Mexican subsistence farmers and agro-proletarians have been starving, abandoning the country side, migrating to cities and the US, and capitalists and politicians couldn't care less. But now that the interests of rich capitalist farmers are being affected by NAFTA, these rich farmers are leading the troops against 'neoliberalism'. Capitalists and workers of each country, unite! And fight against capitalist and workers of the other countries. Isn't that also the model followed by the teamsters?
Is the teamsters strategy to block the implementation of NAFTA? Are they betting on some sort of protectionist escalation between the US and Mexico leading to a de-facto abrogation of NAFTA? If the recession is deep and long, such scenario is not to be ruled out. I can see how that'd help to protect US truck owners. But would that help the workers on both sides of the border? Can anyone tell us how and for how long?
_________________________________________________________________ Descargue GRATUITAMENTE MSN Explorer en http://explorer.msn.es/intl.asp