Mexican trucks in the U.S.; the other side of the story

[Louis of PA]

I have been against Mexican trucks entering this country. Now that I learn the Mexican side of the story, it seems to me that our Democratic administration viewed the issue purely as one where they can help their union voter base. It appears that Congress has violated an agreement and has finagled the rules of it.

These new folks in Washington will not hesitate to screw our Veterans and now screw our friends and neighbors. Is Canada next on their list?

Who else are we going to start a trade war with? Such actions helped to extend the Great Depression for thirteen years!

See what you think.
Regards,
Louis of PA

from wallstreetjournal.com

MaRCH 18, 2009
Congress Doesn't Respect Nafta


By ARTURO SARUKHAN

Nobody can argue that Mexico hasn't worked tirelessly for more than a decade to avoid a dispute with the United States over Mexican long-haul trucks traveling through this country. But free and fair trade hit another red light this past week. The U.S. Congress, which has now killed a modest and highly successful U.S.-Mexico trucking demonstration program, has sadly left my government no choice but to impose countermeasures after years of restraint and goodwill.

Then and now, this was never about the safety of American roads or drivers; it was and has been about protectionism, pure and simple. Back in 1995, the U.S. unilaterally blocked the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement's cross-border trucking provisions, just as they were about to enter into force. In response, and after three years of constant engagement, Mexico had no alternative but to request the establishment of an arbitration panel as allowed under Nafta.

A five-member panel, chaired by a Briton and including two U.S. citizens, ruled unanimously in February 2001 that Washington had violated the trucking provisions contained in Nafta, authorizing Mexico to adopt retaliatory measures. Yet once again, Mexico exercised restraint and sought a resolution of this issue through further dialogue.

Unfortunately, Mexico's forbearance only seemed to make matters worse. In 2002, Congress introduced 22 additional safety requirements that Mexican trucks would have to meet, a measure that was clearly discriminatory as these requirements were not applied to U.S. and Canadian carriers operating in the U.S. Mexico worked assiduously with the U.S. administration to find a solution to this problem.

Finally, in 2007 an agreement was reached that included the implementation of a demonstration program in which up to 100 carriers from each nation would be allowed to participate. This program was designed precisely to address the concerns voiced by those opposed to cross-border trucking. The demonstration program, launched in September 2007, was an unmitigated success.

During the 18 months that the program was in operation, 26 carriers from Mexico (with 103 trucks) and 10 from the U.S. (with 61 trucks) crossed the border over 45,000 times without any significant incident or accident. Moreover, according to reports of both the Department of Transportation's inspector general and an independent evaluation panel, Mexico's carriers participating in the program have a safety record far better than that of all other carriers operating in the U.S.

The demonstration program also underscored the benefits of free and fair cross-border trade, given the lower costs that would result from ending the requirement that short-haul trucks be used to transfer cargo at the border from the long-haul trucks of one country to those of the other. Thus, for example, one participating carrier saved over $600,000 a year by cutting trip times and fuel costs, while another saved an estimated $188,000 in transfer fees in the nine months that it participated in the demonstration program.

These savings benefit consumers and enhance North American competitiveness. Moreover, a streamlined system would also cut pollution, since fewer and newer Mexican long-haul trucks would replace smaller and older trucks that now huff and puff their way to the border.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding these benefits to businesses and workers, and to the safety of our roads and the health of our environment, a small but vocal group has consistently blocked progress on this issue. It has now finally managed to stop the demonstration program by defunding it through the 2009 omnibus spending bill.

In confronting this situation, the government of Mexico -- after over a decade of dialogue and engagement in which it has asked for nothing more than U.S. compliance with its international commitments and with the rules of the game that provide for a level playing field -- has had no alternative but to respond by raising tariffs on 90 U.S. products that account for approximately $2.4 billion in trade.

It is worth noting that this takes place shortly after Mexico announced it would unilaterally reduce its industrial tariffs from an average of 10.4% in 2008 to 4.3% by 2013, and that it has underscored its commitment, along with its other G-20 partners, to push back on protectionist pressures.

What has been particularly frustrating in this long and uphill battle has been the fact that the U.S. Congress continues to move the goalposts. Today, opponents within Congress continue to allege concerns related to the safety of America's roads -- yet they cancelled the very program designed to address such concerns, and which had been producing positive results. After all, the cross-border trucking program that was defunded had been demonstrating not only compliance by Mexico's long-haul trucks with U.S. regulations, but a superb and unmatched record of safety.

It is precisely because of our firm belief in the importance of cross-border services that the government of Mexico will continue, as a sign of good-faith and notwithstanding the countermeasures announced early this week, to allow U.S. carriers to provide trucking services into Mexico under the now-defunct demonstration program guidelines and criteria.

Mexico is the U.S.'s second-largest buyer of exports. It remains a steadfast supporter of free and fair trade, and will continue to work actively and responsibly during the coming weeks and months with Congress and the administration to find a solution that will allow safe Mexican trucks onto U.S. roads under Nafta rules.

Mr. Sarukhan is Mexico's ambassador to the United States.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[2571]

We don't want Mexican trucks here because they pose a safety hazard due to Mexican sub-standard safety rule & regs. and Mexico's penchant to avoid any rule through bribery.

This is not about protectionism. You don't hear complaint from Canada. Their rules are the same as ours or slightly more stringent.

If the Mexicans can't control internecine drug wars, how can we expect them to enforce their over-the -road rules?

[JB White]

It's bad enough US industrial jobs have been lost across the border, but now we are to sit back and allow even more jobs to be taken from us on our own soil?

As of now the Mexicans have something to prove so they send the newest rigs and the best drivers north. Give the trucking companies open access and watch what hits our highways in the future. It's bad enough we have a few domestic schlock outfits sneaking past regs without adding foreign numbers to the mix.

I'm beginning to think Mexican officials might be more corrupt than Illinois'

[Jim K]

I don't know if the Teamster's Union can be called a "small but vocal group." They are certainly vocal (in more ways than one) but they are large and a power in the Democratic party. They have opposed any use of foreign (Mexican or Canadian) trucks on U.S. roads, using the "safety" concern as a smokescreen. In last year's election, they were one of BHO's biggest backers and contributors, so draw your own conclusion as to the sudden U-turn on the issue.

Jim

[ClaudeH]

There can't be "free trade" in trucking because an American would be insane to operate a rig south of the border!

The (lack of a) uniform legal system in Mexico would leave any US trucker subject to to rampant corruption - needing to bribe themselves through every inch of the country. Identified as coming across the border, the truck would be subject to hijack because the driver would be known to have been disarmed by crossing the border. Involvement in a simple traffic accident could involve jail and confiscation of truck and cargo instead of a straightforward system of civil penalty and recompense.

It could not possibly be a two-way street for the trucking interests of each country.

Every trip into the US would also involve carrying a load southbound -if available. That's the nature of trucking - you carry something somewhere, you carry something else away from there. If US carriers are realistically unable to operate south of the border despite being legally "allowed" to, then there can only be a net loss of work to US drivers.

The American trucking industry works because we have a cohesive social and legal fabric from coast to coast within which we function. Any Mexican trucker would love to operate within such a safe and secure system, but they don't have anything to offer our trucker's in return.

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

Just to add a bit. those mexican trucks often do NOT list everything they carry, just the legal goods.