Canada should ignore U.S. NAFTA bullying

EDITORIAL: WHAT OTHERS THINK

The Trump Administration in Washington is again trying to create a pressure-cooker atmosphere in which Canada and Mexico can be scared into accepting a bad deal on continental free trade — right-away quick — for fear of some terrible thing that may happen if they don’t. It’s all theatrics.

Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative, warned recently that if the three-way talks in Washington take too long, the current U.S. Congress won’t have time to vote on changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Republicans may lose their majority in the November mid-term elections. Newly elected members taking office in January may reject treaty revisions negotiated by the administration.

Mexicans also will elect a new president in July and the frontrunner at the moment is Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, candidate of the National Regeneration Movement, who may not agree with what the current Mexican government signs. Besides that, U.S. President Donald Trump exempted Canada and Mexico from his punitive import tariffs on steel and aluminum only until the end of May, pending the outcome of NAFTA talks.

For all these reasons, Canada is supposed to hurry up and sign what Mr. Lighthizer is demanding. Most recently, he was demanding automatic expiry of the CanadaU.S.-Mexico trade treaty every five years unless all the parties agree to continue it. He also was demanding a sharp increase in the U.S. content of automobiles traded among the three countries and an end to international panels to resolve disputes.

Five-year termination is absurd in a trade treaty. Why would any company build a plant anywhere if the trade rules may be torn up in five years or less? International disputesettling panels have been absolutely essential for Canada from the beginning of Canada-U.S. free trade. National content in autos is still under discussion.

But there is nothing here for Canada to fear. If the Trump administration can’t get its NAFTA changes through Congress, then we simply carry on with the treaty as it stands. If Mr. Lopez Obrador wins the Mexican presidency and wants further changes, the other parties will have to hear his proposals and judge them on their merits at the time. If Mr. Trump tries once again to slap import tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, he will face the same domestic resistance that forced him to back off in March.

Mr. Lighthizer summoned Mexico’s Ildefonso Guajardo and Canada’s Chrystia Freeland to Washington for brink-of-theprecipice, make-or-break talks. But the only desperate party in these talks is Mr. Lighthizer, whose boss thought he could bully Canada and Mexico into submission and now is finding that he can’t get the job done. The increasingly shrill tone of Mr. Lighthizer’s demands for a quick agreement reflects his difficult position.

The Trump administration desperately needs a win to wave in front of its voters in November. In the complex business of trade law, almost anything can be portrayed as a win if it seems to promise more U.S. jobs, even if it does Canada and Mexico no harm.

Ms. Freeland and Mr. Guajardo should leave Mr. Lighthizer twisting in the wind a little longer. He isn’t yet desperate enough to sign anything at all, but he’s getting there. Once he walks out and slams the door, it will be time to offer him the concession he can dress up as success — perhaps something about dairy products.

An editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press (distributed by The Canadian Press)