Randy McDonald ([info]rfmcdpei) wrote,
@ 2008-02-27 09:16:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:canada, economics, mexico, nationalism, transnationalism, united states

[BRIEF NOTE] Partners?
From The Globe and Mail, John Ibbitson's article "Clinton and Obama vow to reopen NAFTA".

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would withdraw the United States from the North American free trade agreement with six months notice after becoming president, unless the deal were completely renegotiated.

The Democrats made the commitment yesterday at the final debate before next Tuesday's Texas and Ohio primaries.

Both candidates have been highly critical of the trade deal, saying it has cost thousands of Americans their jobs.

Asked whether she would inform Canada and Mexico that the U.S. government was activating the six-month opt-out clause under which any country can leave the deal, Ms. Clinton replied: "I've said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously we'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do; ... we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it."

Ms. Clinton would demand new environmental and labour provisions as well as a new dispute-resolution mechanism, and she would eliminate the right of foreign firms to sue Washington for enacting measures to protect its workers.

All those demands would be negotiated with Canada and Mexico while the six-month opt-out clock ticked.


Talk of renegotiating an unfair and threatening NAFTA seems to be, in the United States' political lexicon, some sort of trope for an unfair and threatening economic relationship with the world in general, somewhat like free trade for some Canadians. Still. Is it wrong for me to be suspicious of the United States' willingness to renegotiate NAFTA fairly, especially with one partner that has a tenth of the United States' population and the other with a third of the United States' population and a third or so of the larger country's GDP per capita, both of these members being much more dependent on trade with the United States than vice versa, especially in light of the United States' demonstrated reluctance to abide by many of the rulings of the various tribunals involved in NAFTA?


(Post a new comment)


[info]ptownnyc
2008-02-27 03:07 pm UTC (link)
I don't have the data to know the answer to the question re: is NAFTA beneficial to the U.S., but can you really fault a politician who believes NAFTA to have done more harm than good if they want to pull out of it? Politicians are in the business of advocating for the benefit of the state they govern, not for other sovereignties.

Conversely, if NAFTA has really been of benefit to Mexico and Canada, and it was a choice between scrapping it and renegotiating it, what choice would those governments have than to attempt negotiation?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rfmcdpei
2008-02-27 08:23 pm UTC (link)
I can't speak about Mexico, although the free trade under NAFTA seems to be at least as important as having a destination for migrants and a source of remittances. What I can say is that for Canada, the access to the American market that was first secured in the 1988 bilateral free trade agreement and reinforced under NAFTA has come to play a critical role in giving the Canadian economy a needed extra edge. Taking that away would do bad things to the economy of Canada, particularly that of Ontario, at a time when the economy's in bad enough shape.

Americna politicians have that right. I just don't think it's a good idea for American politicians to even inadvertantly given the United States' Canadian and Mexican neighbours a hard time. If Americans do want to do that, then what incentive do Mexicans and Canadians have to build a community with their larger neighbour?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ptownnyc
2008-02-27 08:28 pm UTC (link)
I agree with your points, but to play devil's advocate:

If the price of benefitting Canada and Mexico is a continued hemorrhage of jobs and industries out of the US, where is the US benefit in this free trade agreement? The community of nations might then be not worth much.

Good neighborly feelings doesn't put food on tables.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rfmcdpei
2008-02-28 08:44 pm UTC (link)
If the price of benefitting Canada and Mexico is a continued hemorrhage of jobs and industries out of the US, where is the US benefit in this free trade agreement? The community of nations might then be not worth much.

But if there isn't a hemorrhage of jobs and industries out of the United States, just an unfortunate conflation of NAFTA with economic competition from China that no one's bothering to correct, would it be just another case of an untrustworthy United States junking its treaties with smaller and weaker nations whenever it wants to do so?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ptownnyc
2008-02-28 08:48 pm UTC (link)
Is there a treaty clause saying that the U.S. commits to this for all time? I ask because I don't know.

Honestly, if it is permissible to withdraw from some treaties, why not others if they are working against national interest?

I'm not saying NAFTA is - but if it is, then is the U.S. committed to harming itself for all time?

That is a nonsensical position.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rfmcdpei
2008-03-06 07:21 pm UTC (link)
(Sorry for the long delay--things have been hectic.)

It comes down, for me, to the question of whether the United States is a reliable ally or not. I've no problem with Canada making trade deals with the United States; I even have no problems with our economy's being restructured to fit a wider North American market. But if the United States decides to junk that deal--inflicting, incidentally, proportionally greater damage on the smaller Canada than on themselves--simply because they feel (wrongly) that NAFTA is to blame for their unrelated to its own self-inflicted problems, then that speaks strongly to the United States' unreliability. If it's just a matter of whether it junks human-rights law under Bush and customary trade law under Obama or Clinton, what's the actual difference?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

kinda sad
[info]nickmoles.wordpress.com
2008-02-27 03:38 pm UTC (link)
No president of the US will withdraw from NAFTA. The democrats have to pander to their blue-collar base with such nonsense in order to survive the more ideologically-driven primaries. A president, who is under different pressures, is much less likely to do such a thing once in office.

I think that Nafta has been a bit of a wash for the US. I saw some stats a while back that said the effect has been mildly positive. On the other hand, the GDP of Mexico has effectively tripled or so since NAFTA came into effect. Some of those jobs that were lost were going to be done by Mexicans anyway, but maybe the Nafta agreement had some effect on reducing migration flows.

I don't think anyone really cares about Nafta from the Canadian angle. The US and Canadian economies were pretty complimentary anyway.

Does anyone know if Nafta is a concern for Canadians? Has there been any net manufacturing job loss to Mexico, or is that mainly an American phenomenon?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: kinda sad
[info]gwdanton
2008-02-27 04:51 pm UTC (link)
Mexican factories once booming along the US border are now being shut down as companies move manufacturing to China. "Follow the cheapest labor" seems to be world corporate policy. Of course, the recent recall scandals seem to show that "you get what you pay for."

On top of all that, you have Michigan advertising heavily for start-up companies to relocate there. Should California companies decide to take Michigan up on its offer should Ah-nold complain about "unfair competition?" In time that argument will be expanded to include the entire NAFTA-CAFTA region... while, again, corporations take advantage of cheap Chinese and Indian labor.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: kinda sad
[info]rfmcdpei
2008-02-27 08:06 pm UTC (link)
Does anyone know if Nafta is a concern for Canadians? Has there been any net manufacturing job loss to Mexico, or is that mainly an American phenomenon?

Québécois were strongly for it, as a way to distance Québec from dependence on the American market, while Ontarians were concerned about the impact on their industrial economy.

Ontario's main concern is access to the American market for Ontario's substantial automobile manufacturing sector. Various advantages (government health care, say) have given Ontario plants an advantage over their American competitors. If access is taken away ... Well, Bad Times indeed.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Join the EU
[info]garmacottar
2008-02-27 04:21 pm UTC (link)
You know you want to. Also it offers a way of keeping Canada non USAn even if Quebec secedes. Quebec and the Maritimes can just join in their own right, same way as Scotland or Catalonia will once they secede.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Join the EU
[info]anzhalyumitethe
2008-02-27 06:02 pm UTC (link)
Or just join the US and, y'know, actually influence the policy that so greatly affects you. O:)

(Sorry, Randy, couldn't resist)

A bit more seiously, don't ever assume that people that get painted as "The Good Guys" are really such for you and yours.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Join the EU
[info]rfmcdpei
2008-02-27 08:08 pm UTC (link)
A bit more seiously, don't ever assume that people that get painted as "The Good Guys" are really such for you and yours.

I hear you ...

Maybe we both should join the Post-Eurasian Union after Russia and Japan join!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Join the EU
[info]pompe
2008-02-27 08:30 pm UTC (link)
You know your only hope to preserve the Canadian way is to join the EU. ,-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Join the EU
[info]anzhalyumitethe
2008-02-27 08:37 pm UTC (link)
Maybe we both should join the Post-Eurasian Union after Russia and Japan join!

Theoretically, no objection. Yet, I think that point is several decades down the line realistically. Probably a century off, truthfully. It will take the US being eclipsed before it will happen. When that happens may be further off than most expect if the banking sector in China is as iffy as I keep hearing.

Anyways, whither Canada over the next 100 years?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]princeofcairo
2008-02-27 08:38 pm UTC (link)
All the more reason to support McCain, then.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…