
NAFTA re-negotiation works both ways, er, three ways

BE-ELECTED
by Chad Rubel
It takes two to tango, but three to re-negotiate NAFTA.
It was great hearing that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to re-negotiate NAFTA. Clearly, a number of people haven't liked what NAFTA has done and how it has affected certain elements of the economy. And some of those affected actually live in the United States.
What wasn't said last night in the debate is that there are Canadians and Mexicans who would love to re-negotiate NAFTA for their own reasons. And if the U.S. wants to re-negotiate to help itself, so does Canada and Mexico.
As today's Globe and Mail (Canada's primary national newspaper) points out, re-negotiation also would "open the door to an improved dispute- resolution mechanism, something Canada has long advocated."
Canada has also been concerned about the amount of foreign investment in its companies, especially its media.
I confess to not knowing as much about Mexico's issues with NAFTA (I'm somewhat of a Canada-ophile), but the idea that the U.S. is forcing Mexico to take its corn and high-fructose corn syrup would upset me if I lived in Mexico.
The debate focused on whether Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA as part of the Clinton Administration. However, though NAFTA is thought of as a Bill Clinton project, the agreement was initially pursued by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (Conservative Party), U.S. President George H. W. Bush (Republican), and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari (long-time ruling PRI). While Clinton did not alter the original agreement, he did put forward the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation.
NAFTA has definitely been a boon to companies in all three countries, but it has been highly questionable whether it has been good for consumers and those who, well, like having jobs.
But Clinton and Obama (and John McCain if he comes around) should know that opening up NAFTA won't apply just to U.S. interests. Be prepared to reopen the agreement on a number of issues. But you will find that Canada and Mexico can be eager to comply if their demands are met as well.
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version

When the memo became public,
When the memo became public, Obama advisers rejected the idea as absurd and insisted that he was serious about changing NAFTA. Obama even suggested that the United States might opt out of NAFTA if the standards could not be improved to the nation's debt satisfaction. But some longtime observers of the U.S.-Canada relationship said Obama's current position appears to confirm the impression that Canadian officials got from the meeting with Goolsbee.
What?
What do the problems of the debt and the Iraq war have to do with making fairer trade deals? We have a whole lot of problems to deal with thanks to Republicans and Republican-Lites. And corporatist trade deals are high on the list.
Why won't anyone Republician
Why won't anyone Republician ,or Democrat talk about the "REAL" reason America is in the trouble it is? "DEBT"!!! We can re-negotiate NAFTA until we turn blue in the face ,and it IS a terriable problem ,BUT ,our debt is what will bring us down. Our debt is the problem ,and the reason for the debt are two things ,the illegal Iraq war ,and the stupid tax cut .Until someone deals with this issue "NOTHING "is going to change ,and if we are dumb enough to put another GWB back in the white house ,it will only go from bad to worse.
This is all the republican party has to offer,more of the same ,as it has been the last 7 + YEARS
What Good Renegotiating NAFTA If We Stay The Course In Iraq?
"It'll delay the inevitable."
"Which must be derailed, not merely delayed."
"Derailed how?"
"By our electing a president whose going to end the Iraq war plus turning things around here at home."
"And then what sort of world?"
"It'll be up to us."