But the impression of a bullying America that doesn't give a damn about its friends and won't keep its word

We've already had eight years of this, so a bit late to be upset by it.

At any rate, who knows, but the impression I get is Obama is looking at a "mend it, not end it", strategy. Ergo, improving upon NAFTA, not shelving it. Most likely, this won't be imposed willy-nilly, as you are afraid of.

Obama has no idea of how to "improve" NAFTA (he seems to think it includes China, for example) and the only reason he talks about it at all is to score points with the Che Guevara crowd.

As someone at NRO said, you don't "repair America's image abroad" by reneging on trade agreements.

hypocrisyrules has an odd view of history, seeing only the last eight years instead of the last 120 years. It's been a long time since the US could be both trusted and relied upon. And frankly, that's true no matter which party is in power.

The basic question is excellent. Obama is claiming X many jobs are being lost because of NAFTA, but on the other hand he opposes any efforts to control illegal immigration. How can you make that argument with a straight face?

And for those claiming illegal immigration only affects the lowest paying jobs, ask your trade people. I have no doubt we've lost more good union trade jobs to illegal immigrants than we have industrial jobs via NAFTA.

I would hope that any nation's leader would do what he (or she) thinks is best for their nation even at the cost of upsetting people in other countries, but I can't understand the mindset that wants to talk with Iran but be tough and unilateral with Canada...

I would hope that any nation's leader would do what he (or she) thinks is best for their nation even at the cost of upsetting people in other countries, but I can't understand the mindset that wants to talk with Iran but be tough and unilateral with Canada...

We saw it in 2004 when Kerry referred to the countries who publicly insulted our allies by referring to those who were aiding us in Iraq as a “coalition of the bribed and coerced.” And who sent his own sister into Australia to campaign against one of the few leaders who was sending troops to help us out in Iraq in favor of one who promised to withdraw Australian support while promising that he could do a better job of building a “real coalition.” I could understand some of the criticism of the way that the Bush administration dealt with our more recalcitrant “allies” but going out of your way to insult and attempt to politically topple the more reliable ones is not the act of someone who does what they think is best for the United States. It’s the act of someone who has other loyalties or none at all.

The "improvement" will come at others' expense, if it comes at all, and he has publicly threatened to end NAFTA unless this happens to his satisfaction. Which would be even stupider, as an excellent "when the economic roller coaster started trending downward, I immediately stepped out and greased the tracks!" strategy. Perhaps it's a reading disability on your part, HR?

The other nations involved will not be grateful, nor will they interpret the attempt as anything other than the actions of a bully. The attempt will do real harm to relations with both countries (including a pullout from Afghanistan, most likely), exacerbate the illegal immigration problem, hurt the US economy, and lead to distrust by other nations.

Other than that, it's brilliant. I can see why you would support it.

Ever worked in government or any other bureaucracy? One good piece of advice I got from an old hand was "volunteer to take the minutes". No-one wants that grunt work, but at the end of the meeting the minute taker gets to 'paraphrase' the discussion and conclusions reached, and to record them for posterity. Remember this when you use the minutes of a meeting (or a memo serving that purpose) to try to establish just who said what, and what the context was, and what it all means.

SG,

"but I can't understand the mindset that wants to talk with Iran but be tough and unilateral with Canada."

I think I can explain. Being tough and unilateral with Canada, in this case, would include talking with Canada. In the same way, talking with Iran would not exclude being tough and unilateral in the end. I guess I'm trying to say that dialogue and action are not mutually exclusive. It seems odd to me that you would consider them to be so.

Further, I think it is fair to point out that when Obama speaks about "renegotiating" NAFTA, inasmuch as negotiating is not a unilateral process by definition, there is a legitimate assumption that he intends to engage in a bilateral -- or multilateral -- process.

I think I can explain. Being tough and unilateral with Canada, in this case, would include talking with Canada. In the same way, talking with Iran would not exclude being tough and unilateral in the end.

You mean, like how Bush engaged the UN before invading Iraq, and then was tough and unilateral (really just not multilateral enough for some) in the end?

mark:

I think withdrawing from (or calling time-out on) an already negotiated, signed and ratified treaty and demanding to renegotiate is pretty unilateral.(*) Isn't that been the complaint about Iran and North Korea with regard to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty? Wasn't that also the adjective used when the Bush Administration withdrew from the ABM treaty. I don't see what the difference is between those cases and the proposed NAFTA timeout/renegotiation.(**)

But to make myself more clear, I don't understand the mindset that wants to be tough with allies but accommodating of adversaries. It's like not wanting to continue to assist Iraq or invading Pakistan but wanting to sit down at any time with Raul Castro. It seems to me to set the incentives precisely backwards. How does this encourage counties to work with the US? If you work with us we'll withdraw our support when it's politically useful domestically, whereas if you're in conflict with us, we'll meet and negotiate with no preconditions. What message do you think that sends?

The world is complex place and there are no easy answers to any of these dilemmas, but the underlying philosophy - which is being applied pretty consistently - makes no sense to me. I can understand treating allies well and adversaries poorly, treating all countries well, or treating all countries poorly, but this quadrant just doesn't make sense.

(*)I also think it's a historically unprecedented executive power grab, but that's a different topic.

(**)Excepting the fact that the ABM treaty included a protocol for withdrawing.

SG, maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there is a framework within NAFTA that allows for the very type of timely re-negotiation that Obama is suggesting. That said, to your more general point, the idea of comparing wanting to look into one treaty with our closest ally, given all the near-infinite amount of relative cooperation between the two countries on a daily basis, with the idea of simply speaking with the leadership of Cuba, Iran or NK, while not advocating engaging in any significant economic, military or diplomatic cooperation on a daily basis, is simply ludicrous. It's like saying "how can I argue with my wife about where to go on vacation and at the same time even consider showing up at the arbitration meeting with guy who's trying to sue me for accidentally scraping his Vespa." I mean, c'mon: Canada is our chief ally and friend so we can't even think about improving a deal we've got with them? That's betrayal? That's bullying? That prohibits dialogue with enemy nations in order to avoid military confrontations? We're talking about a FREE TRADE deal on the one hand, and acknowledging the existence of regimes that we spend millions of $$$$ trying to undermine. How is merely talking suddenly "accommodating?"

I mean, for christ's sake, we're not "treating Canada poorly" because we want to renegotiate one single treaty. They're not a dependency, you know. They're grown ups. They can negotiate back.

NAFTA? For the life of me, I have no idea why anyone should find it objectionable. I mean, what's not to like?

Joe: Nice to see a perspective on this informed by an understanding of Canadian politics(and I'm sure you're not missing Toronto right now, down there in LA!), but here's something that's got to be said: McCain should be taken as sincere when he says the United States should not be needlessly annoying its best friends at a time like this, but the senator is not being especially helpful when he calls Canada an American "asset" in Afghanistan.

There can be a thin line between kind words and patronizing words, and like it or not it only inflames the "troops out" sentiment up here when American politicians talk about Canada's engagement in Afghanistan as though it were merely about us being nice to the U.S., or about keeping our trade relations on an even keel.

Canada remained committed to Afghanistan right through the ongoing Aerican betrayal of the spirit and the intent of NAFTA during the disgraceful softwood lumber debacle, which cost perhaps tens of thousands of Canadian workers their jobs.

The reason we're in Afghanistan is the same reason nearly 40 other ISAF countries (including our U.S. friends) are there: To fight the Taliban and provide sufficient security to help the Afghan people build something resembling a democracy from the ash heap of three decades of war. For Canada, if that engagement also happens to be neighbourly, vis-avis the United States, then great, all the better then. But that's not what this is about.

Cheers.

TG

Correct me if I'm wrong -- didn't Obama use his advisor Goolaley (spelling?) to tell the Canadians he did not mean a word of what he was saying and it was all meaningless campaign rhetoric for Ohio?

And wasn't there an internal memo released to that effect by the Canadian consulate in Chicago?

So, what am I missing here? That Obama was lying about his intentions in changing NAFTA? That he's just another con man shill? That there is too much big money invested in NAFTA for any Dem (or Rep) to be serious about changing it?

At any rate China is the big competitive threat. Too much unsafe, shoddy goods made with loads of cheap labor. We ought to inspect Chinese goods "enough" to cut down trade with them and encourage capital intensive alternatives domestically. We could certainly slow down trade and our deficit and (pick em: poisoned food, poisoned dogfood, toxic toys, deadly toys, poisoned toothepaste, poisoned drug ingredients, etc) also get rid of deadly products that will kill.

Why not? Technically it's not a tariff and the Chinese pull the same garbage all the time with our exports to China. We ought to demand the same things China demands of American businesses investing there. If they want access to our market they ought to do the production over here. If not, wave good bye.

At any rate expensive oil will curtail trans-Pacific trade if you buy the Peak Oil theory. If you believe it why not get a head start?

But NAFTA is a dead issue from a con-man who was in no way serious about anything he said (and likely about anything else other than getting paid).

mark:

If you can point me to something that describes a timeout/renegotiation provision in NAFTA, I would be interested. I'm unaware of any, but not interested enough to try to track it down myself. If said provision exists, I'd feel a fair bit better about the rhetoric.

But let's be honest: Nobody is complaining that Canada's environmental or labor regulations don't meet US standards. If we can't have "free and fair trade" with Canada, there's no country on earth that we can . This rhetoric is a mask for naked national self-interest. We don't like losing Ohio jobs to Canada, so we'll abrogate existing trade settlements to prevent it. Invite a trade war even. Don't think this isn't noticed by other allies and prospective trading partners either.

Nor is this limited to Canada and other trading partners. I've also mentioned Pakistan and Iraq as examples of governments that have allied themselves to one degree or another with the US, and the response is that we'll withdraw support as quickly as possible (Iraq) to actually invading (Pakistan).

Again, I can see the reasoning where each of these actions could be in the US national self-interest, so the other country be damned.

But if you're a country that no US leader of either party has been willing with for 50 years (Cuba), are still technically in a state of war with the US and have threatened our regional allies with nuclear weapons (North Korea), or have been actively engaged in almost 30 years international terrorism against the US and its allies, violated your treaty obligation in pursuit of a suspected nuclear weapons program and still hold captured sovereign US territory (Iran), we want to hold summit level talks without preconditions.

I don't see how sitting down for presidential level discussion with no preconditions inherently advances our national self-interest. I can see how it advances the other nation's self-interest, though.

The underlying rule that I perceive is that a President Obama will assert our self-interest when dealing with our allies but not when dealing with our adversaries, and in fact will be solicitous of our adversaries' interests. As a general policy, that's nuts.

Would you agree that the general policy as I perceive it is a foolish one? If so, how am I misinterpreting a President Obama's foreign policy principles? If not, why is treating your adversaries better than your allies a wise policy?

Obama might cost the Democrats the Hispanic vote for a generation, resulting in another generation of GOP dominance.

"But let's be honest: Nobody is complaining that Canada's environmental or labor regulations don't meet US standards. If we can't have "free and fair trade" with Canada, there's no country on earth that we can"
-SG

No, the complaining is largely coming from corporate interests in the US that object to environmental and labor regulations in Canada (or Mexico) that place "externalities" like clean water, breathable air, adequate worker protections, or sustainable development generally above profits. As for those others making complaints, well masses of workers formerly earning living-wages being thrown out of work...I think you get the picture.

"I've also mentioned Pakistan and Iraq as examples of governments that have allied themselves to one degree or another with the US, and the response is that we'll withdraw support as quickly as possible (Iraq) to actually invading (Pakistan).
-SG

Right. Iraq has "aligned" itself with the US in the same sense that Vichy France was "aligned" with Germany. Where do you get this stuff?

I'm certainly not here to defend the Barockstar, but about the only thing he's said that does make sense is for the US to sit down at the table with Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. By no means is it in our national interest to maintain a conflict with these nations--none threaten us and never have. By "national interest" of course I speak of the people of the United States rather than its monied elite.

A final test question: how will NAFTA reverse the current trend that has seen the loss of over 3 million manufacturing jobs in the US over the past quarter century?

Bonus question: since US corporations contribute massively to the trade deficit via foreign-manufactured imports (Wal-Mart alone accounts for over 20 billion), how does the continued promotion of "free trade" agreements benefit most Americans (the narrow view) or the billions around the globe subsisting on 2 dollars per day or less?

"Bonus question: since US corporations contribute massively to the trade deficit via foreign-manufactured imports (Wal-Mart alone accounts for over 20 billion), how does the continued promotion of "free trade" agreements benefit most Americans (the narrow view) or the billions around the globe subsisting on 2 dollars per day or less?"

1.Assumedly somebody is buying all those goodies at rock bottom prices, or Wal-Mart would be out of business. So, consumers.

2.Why do you want to divest workers from 2 dollars a day when they would be making less without the factory? I know you transnationalist lefties love the idea of subsistance existance from your lofty and cush western lifestyles, but mucking the rice paddy isnt all its cracked up to be. Which is why they take the $2 jobs.

and why is it anathma to trade with China... but also morally bankrupt not to trade with Cuba?

Oh, nevermind, we all know the answer. Anything America does is wrong.

Coldtype: You're reading things I haven't written. I haven't said that it's bad to walk out on NAFTA nor that it's bad to talk with Iran, Cuba and North Korea. I've said it's bad to do both. Both positions are defensible individually, but doing both simultaneously is schizophrenic.

Bonus question for you: If we're willing to abrogate our treaties with Canada(!), what possible reason would the governments of North Korea, Iran or Cuba have to believe any agreement that a President Obama might negotiate with them? How much good faith would a President Obama be perceived to have as a negotiating partner?

To address the free trade issue: I'm of a mixed mind on it. In general I think a free trade policy is better for the economy overall, but it clearly produces some losers. If we're going to do something for the people who would be hurt by free trade, I'd rather subsidize the manufacturing jobs via tariffs and other protectionist measures than provide government retraining and other benefits of dubious utility.

Fundamentally, I'd rather pay more for stuff and keep people employed than pay more in taxes to provide benefits for people who are unemployed. And I'd rather subsidize a domestic manufacturing base than subsidize a Chinese manufacturing base. And I just don't think it's reasonable to assume every low-skilled work can be retrained into a high skilled job.

Given the political realities, I can see having a basic free trade policy with countries at a similar level of economic development (which includes both workers salaries as well as environmental protections). I would have free trade with Canada, probably not with Mexico, and definitely not with China. In fact, I might even support laying out free trade guidelines whereby we'll unilaterally drop all tariffs and other protectionist measures against any nation that has a minimum wage at some percentage as ours, equivalent environmental standards, etc. and it's up to our workforce to compete on those terms. It's not economically optimal if you exclude political concerns, but once politics are factored in, I think it might be.

Obama is going to sit down with Castro and talk about ... what? A trade agreement?

I'm sure the heavily protected and subsidized domestic sugar industry won't mind sharing the market with Cuban sugar. Not if Obama renegotiates NAFTA and cuts the Mexico sugar import quota to zero.

Screw the Mexicans - they're a third world country, yet they don't have the common courtesy to be a communist slave state so the American left can get vicarious enjoyment out of them.

Then we can bar Canadian nickel imports, so we can buy proletarian nickel from the Cubans. And force Florida to live with Cuban citrus. And every good leftist is going to have to start smoking tobacco instead of their pestiferous cannabis resin - sticking it to the Mexicans again!

I think NAFTA should be ended or shelved as some have used such word and I really don't care what Canadians think about this. NAFTA is really messing up the U.S. Economy. GET Rid of it now.