Op-Eds
We got a blunt and sobering message last week from Steve Verheul, Canada's head NAFTA negotiator, telling us that negotiations with the Americans are bogged down and, apart from some agreement on peripheral things, there's absolutely no movement on the really tough issues.
The fundamental problem, Mr. Verheul said, is that the United States isn't approaching the negotiations with the objective of concluding a balanced deal. The Trump administration's position is "America First" and "America Only," reflecting the tone of the President's bellicose inaugural address. As a result, the United States has tabled one-sided, intransigent positions, non-starters for Canada from day one. U.S. negotiators have no room to compromise because…
Are we entering the post-NAFTA world? It certainly looks that way.
The markets finally woke up to this on Wednesday, after sleepwalking for the past year, as bond yields and stock prices sank and the dollar took a hit on news that the Trump administration is preparing to pull the plug on the North American free-trade agreement, maybe even before the next round of negotiations slated for Montreal at the end of the month.
Markets have a way of ignoring facts, or at least taking a rosy view in complex situations of government-to-government trade policy. In this case, the somnambulism was based on misplaced optimism that trade negotiators would be able to solve the NAFTA problems, blithely ignoring the significance of…
There was zero progress at the North American free-trade agreement renegotiations in Mexico this week. In fact, the talks took a decidedly backward step, with the United States refusing to move off its red-line positions, something that was predictable given the updated negotiating objectives released by the U.S. Trade Representative ahead of this week's session.
This is an "America First" administration, after all, with no interest in accommodation, increasing the likelihood of eventual U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, an action that President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened, in spite of intensifying business and political pressures to the contrary.
Given that gloomy prospect, let's look at how things could…
Round 4 of the NAFTA negotiations ended in exceptional bitterness on Tuesday, with the United States presenting a series of deeply disturbing and unacceptable proposals. While the negotiating deadline was extended into early 2018, the talks are heading downhill and will likely hit the wall before then.
It's interesting that commentators are now talking about the need for a Plan B (or C or D) for Canada, when it should have been clear that these talks were on a perilous slope from the outset.
While policy wonks were once full of naive optimism about modernizing the North American free-trade agreement, a cold shower of realism would have doused that rosy glow. The problem is these negotiations were never born of common…
“We live on a continent whose three countries possess the assets to make it the strongest, most prosperous and self-sufficient area on Earth … It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government. A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States – a North American accord – would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them – strong as they are – could accomplish in the absence of such co-operation.”
That was Ronald Reagan, calling for a North American free-trade agreement as he declared his candidacy for the U.S. presidency in November, 1979. When he became prime…
