What if, in the next 10 years, there were a route stretching from the United States all the way south to Chile’s lowest geographical point. Would this route be commercially beneficial for the economies of the respective countries? Although beneficial for the economy as a whole, the citizens may not equally share the benefit but rather carry the burden. Or would a trade route like this, instead, follow a similar road as other trade predecessors have, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and contribute to the exploitation and displacement of people?

As this is being written, a new free trade agreement is being developed, a project known as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The Trans Pacific Partnership not only seeks to create a supply chain reaching from Chile all the way up to North America, but also to expand multinational trade among Asia, South and North America.  For those family owned farms in rural Chile and the rest of the countries that would be affected by this road, the result of such a project would be surrendering their land if it conflicted with the proposed route; they would be displaced from their property and possible sources of income. This new route that is being planned through the TPP may have some beneficial factors but through analyzing past agreements like NAFTA, ideas of potential harms that may arise from this project can be constructed. Here we will discuss these possibilities and what they may bring not only to Chile, but also the 11 other countries involved (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam) based on current data and what we have seen from history, utilizing the best example: NAFTA itself.

On January 1, 1994, NAFTA went into effect. The new regulations were supposed to benefit the North American countries involved in the agreement. The agreement ultimately led to open borders with limited barriers to trade. The shift and focus of the importance of the global economy led Mexico along with many other Latin American countries to adapt more neoliberal policies and to embrace the free-market.

 With little barriers and an open market, Latin American countries are expected to benefit but often times the outcomes are not those previously expected. For example, looking specifically at Mexico, it is evident that, except for some minor successes, NAFTA has contributed to the continued exploitation of labor and wages. The success might be seen in Mexico’s increase as a destination for Foreign Direct Investment; however, these investments often benefit US or other foreign corporations instead. Mexico is not alone in suffering from more economic liberalization; many countries throughout Latin America such as Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic have fallen under the trap of free trade and low-cost labor in order to compete in the global market.

 The North American Free Trade Agreement is one of many free trade agreements (FTAs); currently a new agreement is in its final steps. The Trans Pacific Partnership is an FTA that involves the United States, certain Latin American and Asian countries. Within Latin America, only Chile, Mexico and Peru are currently part of the agreement. In 2012 these three countries, along with Colombia formed a Pacific alliance. Together, the four countries are committed to opening their borders further and striving for further trade liberalization. This Pacific alliance is one of many multilateral alongside bilateral agreements between Latin American countries and the United States that also overlap trade agreements with Asian countries with the purpose of opening their borders even more so. The Trans Pacific Partnership not only seeks to create a supply chain reaching from Chile all the way up to North America but also to expand multinational trade among Asia, South and North America. This new partnership is in the works and has yet to be officially passed. There have been several reports from WikiLeaks, Huffington Post, The New York Times, Forbes and others that have condemned this proposed FTA, stating that it is a mistake. These news outlets have created some buzz around this new deal but the politicians have yet to comment or confirm details regarding the TPP.

The past two to three decades should serve as (negative) example of the effects of free trade agreements. While an expansion in trade results in increased exports and imports, policy makers should address criticism related to workers’ compensation in relation to productivity, to the ways in which the commercial sector can be taken to the next level, and investigate the current displacement of people due to FTAs. There are many concerns that policy makers should consider as they strive to work towards trade growth; that is, if they expect economic growth. In order for a “better” free trade agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership must really analyze the effects of multinational agreements beyond just looking at big numbers like GDP and FDI, but must really dig deep at the circumstances at the core of these countries involved. One of the most important effects is the environmental issues or lack of regulations. Again, relating back to NAFTA and Mexico, we have seen that production plants have grown exponentially throughout the country and these production plants, known as maquiladoras, are very harmful to the environment. Air and waste pollution is generated from the production of goods, and hand in hand with pollution are the health effects. The pollution from toxins is dangerous for workers and those living in the surrounding communities of the maquiladoras. Now lets think about these factors mentioned above. In Mexico we have seen that FTAs bring more harm than benefit due to the costs of the environment, the health risks and the displacement of communities and the production of plants, to name a few. If there is a new route in the works, one like the NAFTA route in Mexico, can you just imagine the outcome? Chile would potentially benefit at first along with the participating nations, but in the long run the harms outweigh the benefit. This route is only one of the notions on the TPP agenda, who knows what else is in the works. With no official public information available we can only imagine what the future of not only Latin America, but the United States and Asia have yet to take on in terms of free trade agreements.