Conflicts Between Free Trade And Environmentalists

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), entered into force on January 1, 1994, combined the economies of the Mexico, Canada, and the United States to create a tariff-free, $6.5 trillion market of 360 million consumers. As well as the free trade achievements, NAFTA is also significant because it is the first international trade agreement to include environmental regulations to promote trilateral environmental cooperation. However, the trade and environment interests both represented in the agreements are in fact a pair of conflicts. Trade advocates believe that the agreement will increase economic development and provide more jobs, but environmental groups fear that reduction on tariffs in trilateral trade will increase pollution levels and resource damage.Then how is NAFTA eventually adopted under such sharp conflicts? By analyzing the conflicts and compromises between trade and environmental groups in two case studies, this thesis tends to show how pluralism, as a model of political science, was applied to trade affairs and eventually led to the adoption of NAFTA and its side agreements.Political pluralism is rooted in European democratic thoughts, finds its origin in"faction"idea in Madison's Federalist Papers 10, and developed by such scholars as Arthur Bentley, David Truman and Robert A. Dahl. According to pluralists, power is diffused in different people rather than in a small group of people, and policy making is a governmental process in which different interest groups play important roles in influencing the officials. The interest of one group will interfere with other people's interest and those people will also form groups to influence the governors to defend themselves. The pressure groups form coalitions to amplify their power in the battle and in some circumstance they compromise to the counterpart to ensure basic interests. At last, the society reaches equilibrium as a whole.The thesis is devoted to the research in NAFTA and environment linkage from this pluralism perspective. With the two representative cases,"Fast Track"reauthorization and NAFTA environmental provision negotiation process, the author explores the different interests thesegroups respectively represented; coalition that environmental groups founded to fight against their counterpart; compromises pro-trade side made to ensure their own interests not interfered; acceptance of compromise by some environmental groups and the final balance reached between the groups by passing side agreements as well as NAFTA itself.In the end, this thesis concludes that the making of NAFTA follows the law of pluralism and pluralism as a model of political science can also be applied to trade affairs.