From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: NAFTA: LAWMAKERS URGE CLINTON NOT TO SUPPORT NAFTA 
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:28:35 GMT

    "would adversely affect U.S. working people, consumers and family
    farmers, and exploit low-wage workers in Mexico.
	-- Over 100 members of the House of Representatives

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[See misc.activism.progressive for three other articles on NAFTA just posted]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Inquiries by email, please, to harelb@math.cornell.edu, for more
information about PeaceNet/EcoNet or about misc.activism.progressive]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 177       TRADE.NEWS 10-15-92 
kmander Updates on GATT & NAFTA Negotiations    11:53 am  Oct 15, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRADE NEWS BULLETIN 
Thursday, October 15, 1992 
_________________________________________________________ 
NAFTA News Summary 
_________________________________________________________ 
LAWMAKERS URGE CLINTON NOT TO SUPPORT NAFTA 

Over 100 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to  
presidential candidate Bill Clinton expressing concern about his  
stated intent to support the North American Free Trade Agreement.   
The letter, dated October 3, encourages Clinton not to endorse the  
NAFTA negotiated by the Bush Administration because it would  
adversely affect U.S. working people, consumers and family farmers,  
and exploit low-wage workers in Mexico.  The lawmakers argue that,  
under current circumstances, "it makes no sense to rush into an  
agreement that would negatively impact the living standards of the  
entire continent." 

Source: Letter to Bill Clinton from members of Congress, October 3,  
1992. 
_________________________________________________________ 
STUDY: CALIFORNIA WILL GAIN LITTLE FROM NAFTA 

The North American Free Trade Agreement would not produce huge  
job gains or losses in California and would do little to decrease  
immigration from Mexico, according to a new UCLA study.  While the  
authors of the study support free trade, they conclude that additional  
measures are needed to encourage economic growth.  Raul Hinojosa- 
Ojeda and Goetz Wolf recommend the formation of a regional  
development bank that would invest in infrastructure,  
environmental cleanup and rural modernization in Mexico which  
would improve wages and living standards in Mexico and thus create  
a bigger market for U.S. goods. 

Source: "Trade Pact Offers Little for California, Study Says," JOURNAL  
OF COMMERCE, October 9, 1992, p. 3A. 
_________________________________________________________ 
GATT News Summary 
_________________________________________________________ 
FRENCH FARMERS PROTEST EC CONCESSIONS TO US 

Farmers in several French cities dumped trash, soil and manure in  
front of public buildings Wednesday to encourage the government  
not to give in to EC and U.S. pressure to reform France's agriculture  
policies. 

French and EC officials tried to prevent the demonstrations by saying  
the EC and U.S. remain far from a settlement in GATT talks and that  
France would continue to reject U.S. demands for a cutback in EC  
grain exports.  France "would in no case accept an accord that isn't  
balanced and is against the interests of French agriculture, which is  
number one in Europe," said Foreign Minister Roland Dumas.   

After meeting with French President Francois Mitterand, European  
Commission President Jacques Delors said a deal is not near and that  
France is not alone in blocking an agriculture deal.  "What is blocking  
it is European interests which are just as important as American  
interests," Delors said. 

Despite France's insistence that it is not solely responsible for  
blocking the Uruguay Round, most GATT supporters now largely  
blame France for the failure to conclude the talks.  In an editorial,  
the WALL STREET JOURNAL blames France, and its farm lobby in  
particular, for preventing "so many from accomplishing so much."   
The editorial states it is "remarkable that a vast improvement of the  
world's trading structure could be brought to a halt by a single  
interest group." 

Meanwhile, in Brussels, EC Agriculture Commissioner Ray MacSharry  
said, "We're still on course for a GATT deal this year."  U.S. and EC  
officials now say the next chance for a breakthrough in the Uruguay  
Round will be at a meeting this weekend of trade ministers of the  
U.S., EC, Japan and Canada. 

Source: David Crary, "France-Farmers Protest," AP, October 14, 1992;  
"Delors Says Long Way to Go Before GATT Accord," REUTER, October  
14, 1992; "EC, U.S. to Discuss GATT During Quad, Canada Says,"  
REUTER, October 14, 1992; "EC, U.S. Seek Oilseeds Deal, Move on Farm  
Trade," REUTER, October 14, 1992; "France vs. the World," WALL  
STREET JOURNAL, October 14, 1992, p. A16. 
_________________________________________________________ 
Produced by: 
Kai Mander     
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) 
1313 Fifth Street SE, Suite #303 
Minneapolis, MN 55414-1546 USA 

Telephone:(612)379-5980 Fax:(612)379-5982  
E-Mail:kmander@igc.org 
_________________________________________________________ 
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive