9
Serious business. Or so it seems. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are out to either gut or completely renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement. They were adamant about it in their debate in Ohio on Tuesday.
If it did happen, Gordon Ritchie, one of the chief former free-trade negotiators, was saying yesterday, "it would be a significant risk. Dismantling NAFTA would measurably affect the competitiveness of our exports to the United States."
We already have a set of precarious trade circumstances. A high dollar, a slumping American economy, the ramping up of the border for security reasons. Start jacking around
with NAFTA on top of all
that - and look out!
But in regard to this country, what a load of bunk the two Democrats preach. They want renegotiated environmental and labour standards to protect American jobs. But Canada's standards in those areas are as high, if not higher, than those of the United States.
They talk about the need for a new dispute-settlement mechanism. But which is the country that should be shouting from the rooftops on that front? Wasn't it Washington that undermined the dispute-settlement process in respect to softwood lumber negotiations?
International Trade Minister David Emerson got it right yesterday when he said the U.S. was doing well under the accord, particularly in regard to its secure access to Canadian energy resources. If they think a renegotiation would be a one-way street, he warned, forget it.
What's happening, said Liberal trade critic Navdeep Bains, is that Canada is getting unfairly dragged into the American labour-market problem. "The elephant in the room is Mexico. They're using NAFTA to sugarcoat what they want to say about Mexico."
I came across Emilio Goicoechea, Mexico's ambassador to Canada, at lunch yesterday. His country, he said, does not want to see NAFTA reopened. In the meantime, he offered, Canada and Mexico should get together to make plans in case it is.
Seated not far from him was Pat Carney, the former trade specialist for the Tories. If the Democrats take power, she said, good luck. Any bid to crank up a NAFTA renegotiation in respect to Canada would face roadblocks from American business. "The American multinationals who invested in Canada on the basis of free trade would scream bloody murder."
In 1993, it was Canada and the new government of Jean Chrétien that wanted NAFTA renegotiated. Mr. Chrétien settled for add-ons to the accords, and side letters on water and energy that are regarded as toothless. Maybe we should give them something like that this time.
In polls, Canadians show great support for the trade agreement, though with the negative impact of the high dollar, the enthusiasm is cooling somewhat.
In the larger context, trade experts fear that Washington will move away from support for free trade globally, occasioning a return to economic nationalism, which will hardly serve Canada's interests.
The likely Republican nominee for president, John McCain, has been a strong supporter of free trade and is unlikely to push for changes to NAFTA. But while he may be of benefit to Canada on the trade side, on security matters, it is an entirely different story.
Unlike Mr. Obama, who favours a new internationalism, Mr. McCain is an American nationalist, a confrontationalist out of the Bush school who supports the Iraq war and an attack on Iran, should it get within whiffing distance of nuclear weapons. Though he might favour open trading borders, he could very well ramp up the fear culture, creating a worse effect on bilateral trade than any trade-pact renegotiations.
"If you look at the problems on the border now," said Gordon Ritchie, "they are almost entirely due to anti-terrorism and pseudo-security."
On trade, score one for the Republicans over the Obama-Clinton NAFTA nonsense. On war and peace, run for cover from John McCain.
