First of all, I should make it clear that I don't understand NAFTA at all. It happened before I was economically aware (I have a vague memory of seeing newspaper headlines about it and feeling terrified at how big and scary the grownup world was with all this free trade stuff I couldn't even begin to understand) so I have trouble understanding it because I don't have anything to compare it to. So nothing I say in this post is intended to say or imply that I think NAFTA is a good idea or a bad idea.
But understanding NAFTA isn't necessary to see this plot hole.
So first both Clinton and Obama mentioned that they'd renegotiate or opt out of NAFTA if elected president.
Then both Stephen Harper and David Emerson made statements to the effect that it would be a bad idea on the Americans' part to reopen NAFTA because NAFTA is pretty darn good for them and we would renegotiate something that is more in our favour.
So why did they make these statements? They really sounded like they were intended for American ears too. But if NAFTA actually so good for the Americans and renegotiating was such a risk for Americans, they wouldn't need to say things like that for American ears. They could just quietly wink at Canadians and say "Don't worry, they don't know what they're talking about." Then if the Americans do reopen NAFTA, we could just shrug our shoulders and go along with it in a docile Canadian way, then work out a deal where we make some nominal concessions to whatever the perceived slight is in exchange for ALL the oil plus one of the nicer Hawaiian islands and access to Hulu and free shipping from amazon.com. (See, I told you I don't know what NAFTA is actually about).
But then (apparently, allegedly, etc.) someone leaked a memo from Obama's team saying "Don't worry Canada, this NAFTA stuff is all just rhetoric, we don't really mean it" (traduction libre) and all kinds of shit happened as a result.
But again, if they knew that it was all just campaign rhetoric, why would both Harper and Emerson make these seemingly US-directed statements about how it's not that good an idea for the Americans?
I don't know what to conclude, but it is a plot hole.
3 comments:
In short hand ('88-'96):
A - there was official free trade between the US and Canada. (there was an AutoPact for the previous 30 years)
B- that was extended to include neighbouring Mexico, so that they'd have some manufacturing jobs too. (instead of crossing their border, en mass)
The problem is C - low barrier trade with China was introduced soon after. (and today - no more US/Canada AutoPact)
From the article
The leak of a sensitive Canadian diplomatic memo that rocked Barack Obama's bid to be U.S. president highlights the Conservative government's fumbling of the foreign affairs file, says a retired top foreign affairs official.
I don't think a Canadian diplomatic memo about a trade agreement few people understand very well "rocked" Obama's presidential bid. That's a pretty strong word and I would file using it in the lead paragraph of a news story under "hyperbole." Maybe even laughable/wtf are you saying, dude? hyperbole.
Is it really something few people understand? I always felt like everyone in the world understands it except me.
Post a Comment