Advertisements

Time for Negotiators to Double Down at Clock Ticks on NAFTA


Photo: Financial Regulation News

By EARL ANTHONY WAYNE    

Former U.S. ambassador to Mexico and public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C.

Special to Pulse News Mexico

(The following article first appeared in the U.S. political website “The Hill” and is being republished in Pulse News Mexico with specific prior permission.)

After a short cooling off period, the North American Free Trade (NAFTA) negotiators need to redouble efforts to forge an agreement this summer that all three countries find beneficial.

An agreement that preserves and increases the almost 14 million U.S. jobs supported by NAFTA is clearly in the United States’ interest. On June 18, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo provided an optimistic perspective that agreements could be reached “in the coming weeks.”

A North America without NAFTA would lose billions of dollars in exports, end millions of jobs and increase consumer expenses, according serious studies. The new U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and retaliation by others will cost additional jobs if left in place.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says NAFTA uncertainty and the new U.S. tariffs are already raising costs and taking a toll on business. A NAFTA that better prepares the United States for the global competition with China makes much more sense than weakening cooperation with the United States’ two biggest export markets and production partners.

To find success, however, the rhetoric needs to move beyond misleading statements about “trade deficits” and “fair trade” to fact-based analysis and proposals to improve the agreement in ways that all three countries’ leaders can defend at home.

The United States and its two neighbors need an agreement that will demonstrably make North America wealthier, stronger globally and better prepared for the shocks of competition during the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” ahead.

The legislatures and publics of all three countries should examine carefully the proposals under consideration and the analysis supporting them, as well as the agreements reached. They should not let governments off the hook to produce a forward-moving and forward-looking agreement.

After the blow-up around the Group of Seven Summit, Canada is in no mood to be forced into an agreement. Canadians rallied behind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in rebuffing the new U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and the harsh criticism of Canada.

Canadians are chaffing from factual inaccuracies, e.g., they really do have a trade deficit with the United States, the United States actually has a large manufacturing surplus with Canada and 99 percent of trade is actually tariff free.

They reject the charges that Canadian steel is a “national security” threat to the United States, given that the nation has been a U.S. ally in conflicts since WWI.

In Mexico, there is strong support for Mexico’s $3 billion retaliatory tariffs in response to the U.S. steel tariffs, as well as for rebuffing President Donald Trump‘s continued calls for Mexico to pay for a border wall, which recently sparked a stern Twitter rebuke from Mexico’s current president, Enrique Peña Nieto.

The focus in Mexico, however, is how things will change now that the Sunday, July 1, presidential elections have ended. Before the new Mexican president takes office, there is a long transition until December. This gives a summer window when negotiators could try to forge an agreement. Perhaps the United States could submit it to the current Congress before its term ends in 2018.

These next months offer a window of opportunity for the United States to get a fresh start with Mexico’s new president, who will serve for six years. Mexican officials say they are ready to re-engage and expect their president-elect will welcome getting an agreement done before he takes office.

The winner of the Mexican presidential race, left-of-center Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has so far taken a low-key approach to NAFTA, signaling that he supports it, but also says that no NAFTA is better than a bad deal. How the United States handles NAFTA and other Mexico-related issues in these coming months can set the tone for the next six years.

In this connection, President Trump and advisors recently talked about dividing NAFTA into two bilateral negotiations. This looks like an effort to increase the U.S. advantage over Mexico and Canada, which both will likely resist.

Dividing NAFTA in two would also be costly for U.S. interests. First, U.S. industry is more competitive against rival producers because a three-way NAFTA has allowed companies to build more efficient integrated supply chains across North America, reducing costs for consumers.

Second, U.S. business and farmers see the new three-way NAFTA as a way to move further toward shared regulatory norms and more harmonized customs and border trade processes in order to lower costs and open new opportunities.

A recent study of the U.S.-Mexico border found that more border integration could create over a million new U.S. jobs and $140 billion in GDP growth.

Third, a three-way NAFTA accord will carry more weight than bilateral agreements in shaping international rules and norms in markets containing most of the world’s consumers.

The EU and China are working hard to get others to adopt their rules, disadvantaging U.S. companies. A new NAFTA will be a stronger base for the United States to present its preferred norms.

Fourth, the three-way collaboration in North America enhances energy security and supports lower prices, which in turn will make manufacturing more competitive.

Finally, some issues will be negotiated bilaterally (like Canadian dairy supports and Mexican labor issues), even in a three-way agreement.

Hard work in May on the crucial “rules of origin” for manufacturing autos under NAFTA made progress. But, important differences remain on issues including the auto rules, intellectual property, agricultural market access, labor, geographical indications, dispute settlement, government procurement and whether or not to have a “sunset clause” (an issue that helped set off the public clash with Canada).

All parties need to move on some issues (including Mexico on labor rights and Canada on dairy supports). Canadian and Mexican officials say that they are ready to work with flexibility on important issues for the United States, but that Washington needs to show flexibility too, so that each party can win support for a new treaty back home.

North America’s farmers, businesses and workers and their representatives should increase the pressure on all three governments to find creative ways to reach a NAFTA agreement this summer that benefits all three countries.

Earl Anthony Wayne is a public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and career ambassador (ret.) from the U.S. Diplomatic Service, where he served as U.S. ambassador to both Mexico and Argentina, as well as assistant secretary of State for economic and business affairs.

Advertisements
Categories: Finance, International Relations, International Trade, Latin America, Mexican politics, Mexico, Mexico-U.S. relations, OpinionTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.