ti's interesting that commentators are now talking about the need for a Plan B (or C or D) for Canada, when it should have been clear that these talks were on a perilous slope from the outset.
While policy wonks were once full of naive optimism about modernizing the North American free-trade agreement, a cold shower of realism would have doused that rosy glow. The problem is these negotiations were never born of common objectives among like-minded governments. We're in these talks because of a diktat from one source – U.S. President Donald Trump.
After repeatedly condemning NAFTA as a
"disaster" and the "worst trade agreement ever," Mr. Trump wasn't going
to go gentle into that good night. He was obviously going to follow
through with aggressively one-sided demands to Canada and Mexico – and
that's what they are – or else.
U.S.
presidents set the tone for their administrations in inaugural
addresses to the country and the world at large. Remember Franklin
Roosevelt and "We've nothing to fear but fear itself," or John F.
Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you …"
In
the case of Mr. Trump, it was a bombastic and inward-looking
declaration that it would be "America first and only America first"
during his term of office.
The U.S.
approach to these negotiations is unprecedented, the opposite of
countries sitting at the table to reach a balanced and mutually
agreeable outcome. Mr. Trump will have none of that; to the contrary,
it's all about a zero-sum, take-no-hostages game used by him in putting
together real estate deals.
Faced
with this reality, comments about the need for alternative plans for
Canada are part of a deeper concern over an uncertain trade and
political relationship with the United States.
Read more: Trump’s zero-sum game has likely doomed NAFTA - The Globe and Mail
