Debate: The U.S. Should Not Withdrawal From Nafta

Against Resolution B

Because NAFTA is a detriment to the U.S. economy and the North American environment, the U.S. should withdraw from the NAFTA.

This argument is false because NAFTA has not been a detriment to the US economy and it has not hurt the North American environment. Abandoning NAFTA now would be much, much worse for the US economy and the environment. Even though NAFTA may not be perfect, the US has already agreed and committed to it; it would be irresponsible, brash, and unfair for the US to withdraw from NAFTA now.

The Economy

Group 1 opened the debate by claiming that figures which claimed to show an increase in American exports since NAFTA are misleading, saying "wrong numbers lead to wrong conclusions." However, the United States Census Bureau has conducted studies proving that these published export figures are between three and ten percent low .

On rebuttal, Group 1 opened their rebuttal by pointing out that even though American exports have increased under NAFTA, imports have increased more. They also pointed out that many of the exports consist of parts that are to be constructed in Mexico, meaning a loss in the supply chain for the US. Group 2 opened their rebuttal by returning to the claim that NAFTA has not done what was promised, and this time the backed it with statistics; "Three years into NAFTA, 60 of 67 companies pick for a survey concluded that the promised made by NAFTA advocates have been broken; the promises did not even come close to being fulfilled."

We can all agree that expanded trade raises the income and growth of an economy. Therefore since it is undeniable that NAFTA has expanded US trade, it is also undeniable that NAFTA has been good for the US economy.

 American non-NAFTA trade has increased 67% from 1993-2002, and in that same time period NAFTA trade has increased 105%. In terms of dollars, total trade among NAFTA partners more than doubled from $302 billion in 1993 to $652 billion in 2003 - over a third of total U.S. exports. During the same period, U.S. auto exports alone to Mexico jumped from $95 million to $3.2 billion.

Over the past two decades, U.S. trade with Mexico has increased dramatically. Even with exports and imports expressed as percentages of GDP, growth was substantial (see Summary Figure 1).

Summary Figure 1

In their constructive argument, Group 2 began by saying that "The experience of NAFTA shows that trade pacts will shift the composition of jobs, but cannot be expected to create a net gain in jobs in economies that are at full employment such as the United States and Canada".

While it is true that companies will seek out lower production costs in other countries, it is not necessarily true that these jobs are not replaced by new ones. When the US agreed to NAFTA, we knew that some jobs would be lost; it is a known consequence that free trade will change the pattern of employment. Given the very significant increase in exports from the United States to Mexico, it is difficult to state on the aggregate level that the United States has lost jobs to Mexico. Clearly, some industries have gained, while others have probably lost jobs. However, our industries have become more efficient from the increased competition, and our wages have become more robust from the increased trade.

The Environment

Group 2 claimed that NAFTA has only increased environmental pollution in North America; however they offered no third party statistics or figures to back up this claim. Group 1 simply claimed that "In Mexico, there is rampant air and water pollution, population issues, and high rate of diseases". In terms of rebuttal arguments, neither Group addressed this issue with new information.

NAFTA has not been detrimental to the North American environment. Since NAFTA has been in place, Mexico has begun a serious effort to enforce its environmental laws for new companies, thereby diminishing any incentive for firms to relocate to Mexico to avoid environmental enforcement. NAFTA has provided the framework for multinational environmental agencies to be established. And besides just dictated what should or should not be done with the environment, these agencies, as created through NAFTA, provided funding to back up their policies and make real changes possible. Mexico's environmental problems arose from decades of neglect, and are not caused by NAFTA. It will take time for Mexico to achieve the type of sustainable development envisioned by President Zedillo. The U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce feels Mexico is on the right track to addressing its environmental problems by the use of regulations and economic incentives, which