The Upper (Energy) Hand
Be careful what you wish for. It might just come to fruition. And the results, unfortunately, may not quite reflect what was anticipated.
In the case of the two Democratic U.S. presidential aspirants, their promises to the American unemployed to scrap elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or the agreement in total, as a disingenuous and perhaps lamentably uninformed ploy - for aspirants to high political office - a wake-up call.
All three North American partners in the NAFTA are destined to suffer from the potential of a cancellation of the treaty.
And then, singly, they can face the reality of competitive international markets, where the EU has combined to create singular clout, where the Indian-China duet is beginning to dominate the markets of the future, and think back to what once was. Act in haste, repent at leisure.
Clearly, the Democratic candidates' understanding of the working results of the NAFTA treaty are somewhat imperfect in their comprehension of the details involved therein.
But the United States, being what it is, an exuberant, self-absorbed, narcissistic society, sublimely certain of their prime place in the world of commerce and leadership, is accustomed to calling the tunes - all the tunes - and offering crumbs to competitors, and ostensible colleagues.
There they were, the continent's three political leaders, Mexico's Felipe Calderon, Canada's Stephen Harper, and the United States' George W. Bush, in a NATO conclave, conferring on the success of the treaty up to the present. Presenting the view of both Canada and Mexico, alongside that of the current U.S. administration that there is no need to open the treaty for any further amendments.
All three countries have benefited, yet it seems to the critics of the treaty in all three countries that only their country has suffered, while the other two have advanced. Face is, trade has been inordinately enhanced, businesses have thrived, the economy has benefited - and manufacturing job losses have occurred, but have migrated away from the three countries, not from one to the other two.
But if the new American administration turns out to be Democratic and insists on re-negotiating or scrapping NAFTA, Mexico and Canada can live with it. Mexico has great oil reserves, and can turn elsewhere to an energy-hungry world to peddle its wares there. Canada presents in actual fact, as the U.S.'s central provider of energy sources.
As said Prime Minister Harper: "Canada is the United States' No.1 supplier of energy. We are a secure and stable supplier that is of critical importance to the future of the United States. If we have to look at this kind of an option [a renegotiation], I say quite frankly ... we would be in an even stronger position now than we were 20 years ago. And we will be in a stronger position in the future."
Canada gave up a bit of too much to the United States in signing the NAFTA agreement. And we've been shafted by the U.S. Congress pulling weight and crying foul over subsidies ever since. So bring it on, please do.
In the case of the two Democratic U.S. presidential aspirants, their promises to the American unemployed to scrap elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or the agreement in total, as a disingenuous and perhaps lamentably uninformed ploy - for aspirants to high political office - a wake-up call.
All three North American partners in the NAFTA are destined to suffer from the potential of a cancellation of the treaty.
And then, singly, they can face the reality of competitive international markets, where the EU has combined to create singular clout, where the Indian-China duet is beginning to dominate the markets of the future, and think back to what once was. Act in haste, repent at leisure.
Clearly, the Democratic candidates' understanding of the working results of the NAFTA treaty are somewhat imperfect in their comprehension of the details involved therein.
But the United States, being what it is, an exuberant, self-absorbed, narcissistic society, sublimely certain of their prime place in the world of commerce and leadership, is accustomed to calling the tunes - all the tunes - and offering crumbs to competitors, and ostensible colleagues.
There they were, the continent's three political leaders, Mexico's Felipe Calderon, Canada's Stephen Harper, and the United States' George W. Bush, in a NATO conclave, conferring on the success of the treaty up to the present. Presenting the view of both Canada and Mexico, alongside that of the current U.S. administration that there is no need to open the treaty for any further amendments.
All three countries have benefited, yet it seems to the critics of the treaty in all three countries that only their country has suffered, while the other two have advanced. Face is, trade has been inordinately enhanced, businesses have thrived, the economy has benefited - and manufacturing job losses have occurred, but have migrated away from the three countries, not from one to the other two.
But if the new American administration turns out to be Democratic and insists on re-negotiating or scrapping NAFTA, Mexico and Canada can live with it. Mexico has great oil reserves, and can turn elsewhere to an energy-hungry world to peddle its wares there. Canada presents in actual fact, as the U.S.'s central provider of energy sources.
As said Prime Minister Harper: "Canada is the United States' No.1 supplier of energy. We are a secure and stable supplier that is of critical importance to the future of the United States. If we have to look at this kind of an option [a renegotiation], I say quite frankly ... we would be in an even stronger position now than we were 20 years ago. And we will be in a stronger position in the future."
Canada gave up a bit of too much to the United States in signing the NAFTA agreement. And we've been shafted by the U.S. Congress pulling weight and crying foul over subsidies ever since. So bring it on, please do.
Labels: Canada/US Relations, Crisis Politics
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home