THE NAFTA ISSUE: WHY MC CAIN RINGS THE RIGHT AMERICAN BELL

John Mc Cain asked his Democratic rivals to stop the “NAFTA-bashing,” and criticized them for their intentions to renegotiate a treaty they wrongly blame for the loss of jobs. Mc Cain has consistently remarked during his campaign that the trade treaty has been hugely beneficial for the three countries involved. He also explained the loss of jobs as the price to be paid for the transition from a manufacture society to one based on intellectual work. An enemy of protectionism and a critic of traditional American isolationism, Mc Cain is well placed to reshape the United States image in Latin America as well as in the rest of the world, creating a business atmosphere at a time of great worries about the global economy.


No matter how charming Senator Obama’s looks are for Latin Americans always ready to adore someone who defies the WASP standard or how attractive is the idea of a woman ruling the first country in the world, people beyond the border still care more about economy and how American elections will influence their lives. McCain’s news on free trade look good: United States’ protectionism is always feared by Latin America, which as a region still balances between the acceptance and the rejection of the FTAA (Free Trade Area for the Americas), that bigger NAFTA which will eventually involve all the countries in the Americas. McCain’s campaign hasn’t linked yet the Americas free trade to the immigration problem, but he might be thinking about it. The idea of bringing the United States to Latin Americans seems a better choice than hosting millions of illegal aspirants to the US citizenship. Free trade has been often rejected by some of the American unions and blue collar workers because it’s seen as an unfair export of manufactures, without considering that in the specific case of Latin America, business lie more in exporting services and know how than factories. The lack of appropriate infrastructure in public services, from water to government organization, opens a monumental chance for American investment and businesses. With a continental free trade agreement, American companies, while securing United States influence in the region, could make great profits there where European companies have advantaged them till now. It is not so much as in the past about helping Latin America, as Democrats propose, but about creating a frame that would tie countries in productivity and security issues.


During the past week, a border incident between Colombia and Ecuador triggered a threat of war, of which Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, took quickly advantage, leading one of his usual calls for a continental union against the United States. John Mc Cain’s response, while not addressing directly the war, called in the Congress to approve a pending free trade with Colombia. If security matters, it’s not all about Al Qaeda, Afghanistan or Iraq: Latin America, if abandoned, can represent a source of conflicts and a potential major trouble. Democratic candidates opposing trade agreements resign at the same time commerce as the best defense weapon of democracies in an unstable world. Mc Cain has pointed out this contradiction in candidates who are opposed ideologically to war but who refuse to create the conditions to prevent it.


To change NAFTA-bashing into NAFTA-pride will probably become, in the weeks to come, a main Republican campaign’s argument for economy growth and security. At the same time, the Republican candidate’s good relationship with Latin America, which gets him the favor of many Latino voters, could start now to represent also a great advantage to business makers. Reluctant and ironic Republicans could take then a second look on Juan McCain, who not only has Latino friends but is far ahead from trade blind Democrats in what concerns the greatness and security of America.