BARBER: Second Trump presidency a chance for first Poilievre government

Dr. A.W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests. Part two of a three-part series. Read the first installment here.The North American Free Trade Agreement was a tri-nation agreement taking effect in 1994. By “free trade” what was meant was managed trade, free of some barriers. These agreements were underpinned by political considerations which were part of the undercurrent for NAFTA. It was not just about business. One could argue that the inclusion of Mexico in NAFTA had significant political points behind it. These would include the idea that increasing the GDP of Mexico by locating production facilities there would ease the illegal immigration into the USA. Also, this would help stabilize the historically weak Mexican government. However, before ratification both Canadian and the US governments had objections which were overcome with two side-agreements, one on labour and the other on the environment. Overall, NAFTA was a win for Canada but in the initial decade there were noticeable job losses. The trade balance was in the US favour in the service sectors, but this was significantly outweighed by the negative balance in goods. About 700,000 US jobs were lost (estimates vary) with some states hit harder than others. The US deficit with Mexico, adjusted for inflation, rose by $111.5 billion from pre-NAFTA to 2017: The US trade deficit with Canada doubled.NAFTA has thus been part of the USA’s political dialogue for 30 years. Presidential candidate Ross Perot was strongly against it for economic reasons in 1992. Opposition was not limited to the US conservatives.Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (an independent with socialist leanings) and candidate for the Democratic party’s presidential nominee in 2015, also disliked the agreement. Provisions in NAFTA allowed jobs to be moved to Mexico as predicted by Perot. There are other issues regarding NAFTA, but the trade balance and job loss were two of the more significant in the USA’s political discussion.In 2016, Trump was elected president with the support of many voters who had been been negatively impacted, directly or indirectly, by NAFTA and other “free trade” agreements. These individuals were dubbed “The Forgotten Man,” a term that was in the US political dialogue from the 19th century but reignited by use as a title of a popular book authored by Amity Shlaes in 2007. After Trump’s election, he renegotiated NAFTA with representatives from Canada and Mexico creating a new pact, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA/ aka. CUSMA Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement). From the American perspective USMCA helps protect the auto industry in the US, encourages more production facilities in the US, opens markets to US goods (including online shopping,) and updates regulations and environmental efforts.Trudeau’s NAFTA team seemingly took an aggressive stance initially regarding renegotiating NAFTA, understandable given PM Trudeau’s mocking comments about Mr. Trump and that NAFTA was working for Canada. Trump put tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum in May 2018. Canada responded in kind. Although, some voices at the time said the US tariffs were due to lack of progress in renegotiating NAFTA, Trump’s administration claimed that they were due to the need for US security. Probably, it was some of both.In addition to Trump’s pre-election stance on NAFTA, he is also ill-disposed to multinational trade agreements particularly as understood in the 1990s and thereafter. He holds that some nations engage in unfair trade practices at the expense of the US in these multinational trade agreements. He prefers bilateral trade agreements. He further cites American loss of jobs, moving of production facilities overseas, growth of the trade deficits, national sovereignty and national security as serious problems stemming from such agreements. This evaluation, not without some credit, plays a powerful role in his “America First” rhetoric. One example with two cases should help here. During the world-wide COVID pandemic, countries like the US and Canada soon found out that not having the necessary facilities to produce medical supplies left native populations vulnerable as countries producing the supplies hoarded them for their own population. Second, Germany was facing a critical shortage of natural gas to run their country after the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. The German chancellor personally came to Canada seeking needed assistance from a friend and ally, only to be sent packing empty-handed because of Trudeau’s ideological stance. In both cases there is a challenge to national security.So, why is the Trump’s second presidency a golden opportunity for Canada? If Pres. Trump can remake America according to his vision, the economy will be booming, factories will open, energy will be abundant, the military stock resupplied, and much else besides. An economy firing on all cylinders needs supplies — petroleum products, iron ore, nickel, copper, gold, sulphur, uranium and so much more from Canada could be feeding Trump’s American dream.With the right Canadian leadership, we could chart a new course with our neighbor to the south and once again be America’s friendly neighbor to the north. (This will be covered in the third part of this series.) Unfortunately, Team Trudeau has proven that they cannot manage international relations. The on-going mess with India, turning away both Germany and Japan who sought energy supplies, China’s inconsiderateness toward Trudeau, and even the insulting coverage in the Chinese press of the recent visit by Foreign Affairs Minister Joly, is all the proof one needs.Dr. A.W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.

BARBER: Second Trump presidency a chance for first Poilievre government

Related Stories