Having a FTA with a "richer" country is, in fact, a reason to be secure

Ah, the use of Mexico as an example again. We believe that it is invalid to use Mexico. It is just a random coincidence moved by miracles, and if you imply that it is not miracles because miracles does not happen so frequently, we are here to say that with so many "Jesus" in the population, it is possible. Lol, just kidding, our rebuttals are on the next paragraph. As proven before that there is (of course) legal tool to withdraw from a FTA, there will be no serious harm of withdrawing from FTA, since the FTA countries only contribute 7.5% of the world GDP, and 92,5% of the world's GDP (excludes US GDP) comes from NON FTA countries [[http://www.trade.gov/fta/index.asp]] (yes, it is the same source as theirs, they misunderstand the source, we hope it wasn't done deliberately). About the comparative advantage, we believe it is also clear from the beginning that we never denied that FTA gives some benefit, but we argued that the cost of FTA outweighed the benefit; security is just one benefit that are outweighed by the cost. We will not come with new examples, since previous examples on our arguments is enough for that. Our main reason can concluded in two points: 1. The overall numbers from various indicators will show deficit. 2. Even though the indicators is increased, the welfare of the poor in the countries is jeopardized. The example for the first statement is Ghana, which receives $ 31 in aid per capita, but suffer $ 43 as a loss. [[http://www.christianaid.org.uk/Images/economics_of_failure.pdf]]. For our second point, comes Chile, which is praised by the opposition as the highest-of-everything-good and the lowest-in-anything-bad [[http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=37&pr.y=17&sy=2007&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=213,263,268,273,218,278,223,283,228,288,233,293,238,243,248,253,298,258,299&s=NGDPDPC&grp=0&a]]. but they close their eyes to situation where millions of women workers being paid below minimum and losing their labour right [[http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade/real_lives/chile]]. It is a tragedy of modern civilization, where the wealth of a country was built above the agony of poor people. The irony proved that FTA failure for poorer countries is a systemic failure; even one of the most success countries cannot overcome it. Back to Mexico, our stance is still the same. We cannot negate history, and we will never able to give example where Mexico could survive the crisis without NAFTA. We admit that FTA secured Mexico on 1994. But the security there is still outweighed by the cost. For the feeling of security, Mexico trade balance deficit has risen 80% since the EU – Mexico FTA went into effect. If it is regarded as an "OK" situation by the opposition (because according to them, "there will always be a nation with a bit more of advantage (even if it is a quarter of a cent) and that is normal."), it cost Mexico welfare problem, as example shows that lack of job creation by foreign companies kept the rural area of Mexico undeveloped, and high concentration of investment from foreign investment now controls the economy. (please refer to "Free Trade is not Free Trade (opposition as an example)"). By this point we want to emphasize that free trade is not free at all. It cost the poorer countries its economic control. They may argue that losing small part of economic control is just a loss of little liberty, but this little liberty caused inability to provide welfare, and a less control because the industry specialization narrowed the industry fields, which may caused problem for skilled workforce to adapt. In other case, competitive sectors also unable to absorb workforce from uncompetitive sectors. This will increase unemployment, which may cause social problems. At the end, if we sum the benefit from the loss, we will still see a total loss, without any benefit. Summed up wisely in a quote: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin L Franklin. [[http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin]]