New York Times, “NAFTA Talks’ Extension May Make for Slow, Painful Demise”, by Ana Swanson

10/17/17 – New York Times, “NAFTA Talks’ Extension May Make for Slow, Painful Demise”, by Ana Swanson

Since the new presidency, politics have been the highlight of the news with new changes wanting to be made. One of these recent changes being the negotiation over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). United States, Canada, and Mexico have differing views on whether or not to keep the pact. They must decide and vote by weighing out the benefits but also the negativities of keeping NAFTA. Rewriting the agreement takes time and consideration. In the end, not everyone will get the benefits they were hoping for.

Trump’s take on the debate is to get rid of NAFTA because it does not benefit American workers. Although important to American commerce and the economy, the workers lose their jobs and opportunities. One of the aspects being talked over is what percentage of an American companies’ product needs to be made in the USA. This is the policy of local content requirements that requires a domestic market to supply a specific amount of a product in its domestic country. This is exactly what Trump is trying to do so it keeps more jobs in the United States. Although, withdrawing from the trade agreement will make the U.S. lose approximately 265,000 jobs. This goes completely against what Trump is trying to do.

The upcoming election in Mexico will slow down the process of the negotiation. Voters will not want to take a stand on the new propositions that Trump is suggesting. With the way Trump is clashing with Mexico’s and Canada’s leaders will lead to a lengthy revisal of the trade agreement. Getting rid of NAFTA will tear these three countries apart from a long-lasting relationship. The motivation to fight other issues such

as terrorism, drugs, immigration, and money laundering will lessen. Without NAFTA to hold these countries as a team, they will lack their cooperation with one another.

The NAFTA changing will bring about economy instability. There will no longer be as much international trade. International trade is the purchase, sale, or exchange of goods and services across national borders. Mexico, US, and Canada will lose their ability to trade as freely which discourages trade because they no longer have the trading advantage they used to have. Costs of trading across borders will become more expensive if another one of Trumps suggestions is set into NAFTA. It will raise the prices of dairy products in Canadian. Also, a sunset clause was proposed so that every five years NAFTA will expire unless Mexico, U.S., and Canada agree to reissue it. This gives the side who would not support it an advantage. The lack of political teamwork will cause more arguments and disagreements between political officials.

In my opinion, the modification or extinguishing of NAFTA will have more negative outcomes that it will beneficial ones. One being the amount of jobs that will be lost. All three countries lose jobs even though Trump is trying to help American workers. NAFTA alteration, the proposal of a sunset clause, will make NAFTA more successful because it will allow time for revisions. It gives us a time frame for correcting policies that were not benefiting the countries and can be replaced with better functioning ones. Allowing NAFTA to carry on will not be as bad as it will be taking it away. It has been in place since 1994 and has worked well for all three economies involved. It promotes trade, increases economic activity, and lets business’s work more effectively. With America’s new president, it is suddenly only about the benefit of America. By allowing NAFTA to

run as it has been, America would be helping Canada’s and Mexico’s economies continue to grow. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/us/politics/nafta-negotiators-extend-talks-delaying- its-expected-demise.html