Judge halts American trade pact
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A US JUDGE yesterday threw into doubt the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The agreement, negotiated last year between the US, Canada and Mexico, violated American environmental laws, District Judge Charles Richey said.
He barred President Bill Clinton from presenting the pact to Congress for approval.
The ruling, which apparently took the White House by surprise, could delay final approval of the treaty, signed last December by George Bush, the former president, and the leaders of Canada and Mexico, for several months and perhaps even years.
Judge Richey said the treaty as it now stood 'will have significant environmental effects and may worsen the environmental problems already existing in the US-Mexico border area'.
A full environmental impact report would have to be prepared by the administration before it could go forward with the agreement, he concluded.
The development adds to the controversy surrounding the treaty, which President Clinton wants fully approved by the end of the year. Environmental issues and fear of job losses to Mexico have stirred considerable grass-roots opposition to the deal in the US.
While it seems likely that the administration will appeal against the decision, a spokesman for the President would not comment yesterday, saying he had not had enough time to consider the implications of the ruling.
The case was brought to court by a coalition of environmental lobby groups that have been trying to publicise the possible consequences of the treaty going into effect.
As now drafted it would by-pass some US environmental standards such as pesticide residue limits and pollution controls.
While President Clinton is committed to implementing the treaty, his administration has engaged in supplementary negotiations with the two other countries.
These talks have centred on finalising chapters on labour movement limitations and environmental controls. The talks so far have proved heavy going.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments