When it comes to NAFTA ....

The age-old definition of a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject. It's a definition that would seem to fit those on both sides of the battle over the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, as we've come to call it.

Unless you've just recently arrived here from a long stint in Tibet, you know that NAFTA is a proposed agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico that would eliminate nearly all trade barriers between the three countries. The deal, already ratified between the U.S. and Canada, is designed to unify the North American market, and spur trade, investment and economic growth throughout the entire region. It's the hottest debate in the U.S. Congress and the country.

I had promised myself not to address this particular issue on this page. This is because after studying an accordion folder full of information collected on the subject during the past two years, I've come to the dogmatic conclusion that no one really knows what the effects of NAFTA will be. And you can quote me on that.

Listen to proponents of the agreement talk about jobs created and the growing export sales, and it makes a lot of sense. Listen to opponents of the pact speak about jobs lost and environmental impact, and they also come across as knowledgeable. But if you listen to each closely and long enough, you come to understand they're both arguing from the same vantage point--fear. Fear of the loss of jobs. Fear of the loss of opportunities. Fear that someone else will tap into this developing market and reap the long-term benefits. Fear that such a pact will further erode the standard of living most Americans have come to know.

Fear of the unknown has a strange way of making fanatics of even the most rational of people.

So who has the straight story on the projected effects of NAFTA? The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration uses a statistical approach in presenting its case in a report called Exports to Mexico: A State-by-State Overview--1987-1991. Among its findings were:

* U.S. exports to Mexico--the third leading U.S. export market--totaled $33.3 billion in 1991, a 128% increase from $14.6 billion in 1987.

* Virtually all states benefited from the rapid growth in U.S. exports to Mexico over the 1987-91 period.

* Every major region of the nation posted large increases in exports to Mexico during 1987-91.

* The top 10 state exporters to Mexico in 1991 represented diverse parts of the country and accounted for $28.1 billion or 84.4% of total U.S. exports to the Mexican market.

* The 128% increase in U.S. exports to Mexico from 1987-1991 was more than double the 62% growth in U.S. exports to the rest of the world over the same period.

But more often than not, the arguments posed by those backing the plan or opposing it hinge on emotional issues, primarily those of jobs and the environment. Several months ago, Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN) wrote in supporting NAFTA, "The U.S. will gain greater access to the Mexican market, already the fastest growing market for U.S. exports: up 300% in six years, supporting 400,000 new U.S. jobs since 1986."

Opponents, citing an equal loss of U.S. jobs, take their arguments a step further. Former California Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. rebutted the case for NAFTA by writing: "Almost all American labor leaders, most environmental organizations and thousands of religious and community activists across the United States condemn NAFTA. They do not accept the trade policies of either George Bush or Bill Clinton, believing these policies grossly favor investors and business executives and disadvantage the majority of working people through lower wages, lost jobs and a disrupted natural environment."

Are these or any of the other arguments you've heard or read good ones or merely special interests trying to force their own agendas on the American public? The only thing I know for sure is that, with or without NAFTA, U.S. companies will go to Mexico if it makes sense for them. Many already have. So, I suppose we can argue for or against the trade pact till the National Rifle Assn. agrees to handgun control, but don't count on it being settled in the near future. If you haven't already heard, Canada wants to renegotiate certain parts of the pact ratified with the U.S. two years ago.

Does that give you any ideas about what to expect when it comes to NAFTA?