ALL THREE LEADERS USED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROCLAIM THE VIRTUES OF FREE TRADE AT A TIME WHEN THE CONCEPT IS UNDER ATTACK. YET THEY MANAGED TO GLOSS OVER THEIR OWN TRADE FAILINGS.
Posturing from leaders disguises their failings
THE CONCEPT OF OPEN BORDERS IS UNDER ATTACK BY EVERYONE.
It was a busy day in Ottawa. But a dull day, too.
The first Three Amigos summit in Canada in nearly a decade succeeded in closing down the capital for the day but it achieved little else.
Seldom have so many blathered about the benefits of free trade, while showing so few signs that they really believe in it.
The bilateral meeting between Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto was a success, resetting the relationship between the two countries — Canada waived its visa requirements on Mexican citizens; Mexico opened its borders to Canadian beef.
But the addition of lameduck U.S. President Barack Obama yielded little more than an eerie silence in a downtown that is normally one giant, noisy construction zone.
Vaguely worded, nonbinding pledges to generate more clean energy were touted by environmental groups as progress.
Adding Mexico to the Canada-U.S. agreement to cut methane emissions was hailed as a move that might inspire other oil- and gas-producing countries to follow suit. But these, and other climate-change commitments, were made by two presidents who will no longer be in power when it comes time to implement them. Those of us who have covered two or three U.S. electoral cycles have learned that the burning ambition of one president is oft marked by indifference, or even aversion, by his successor.
All three leaders used the opportunity to trumpet the virtues of free trade at a time when the concept of open borders is under attack by everyone from Donald Trump to the Leave forces in the U.K.
Yet the leaders managed to gloss over their own failings on the trade front.
Despite warnings about the perils of “pulling up the drawbridge,” in Obama’s words, there was nothing tangible achieved on further liberalizing trade or improving labour mobility.
More specifically, while Obama and Peña Nieto emphasized their commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, Trudeau didn’t mention the 12-member trade deal. The matter has been consigned to the long list of matters on which his government is “consulting with Canadians.”
“Trade gives rise to good jobs, innovation and progress,” said Trudeau.
Yet apparently he cannot bring himself to commit to the implementation of the TPP, a deal the World Bank says will increase jobs and growth in signatory countries.
While both presidential candidates, Trump and Hillary Clinton, have made disparaging noises about the TPP, Canada cannot afford to assume the U.S. will not ratify the deal.
As former finance minister Joe Oliver was warned by officials in a briefing note obtained by The Canadian Press last year, the TPP allows Canada to “stay in the tent” with the U.S. and Mexico, continuing to be part of North American supply chains that “underpin the economy.” In the event that the TPP is ratified by its signatories, Canada faces the prospect of nine other nations entering the “NAFTA tent,” diluting this country’s privileged position. One hates to use the phrase “nobrainer,” given its recent checkered history, but if ever there was one, this is it.
Canada was not the only free-trade hypocrite.
Obama told Canadian reporters in the White House’s Rose Garden in March that the softwood lumber dispute would be “fine,” that it was being looked at by smart people and “they’ll find a way to resolve it.”
They haven’t yet and if they don’t by October, the threat of temporary tariffs once again looms over Canadian softwood producers. The reality is U.S. industry wants a hard-cap quota on Canadian supply and is likely to get it in some form.
U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman told CPAC’s Peter Van Dusen that the U.S. “reached out” to the Harper government repeatedly and tried to negotiate an outcome, “but to the chagrin of the U.S. government, we did not have a willing partner.” But that’s disingenuous. The reality is, the Harper government could have said the same — the U.S. government was happy to negotiate a deal with more stringent trade rules, while the Conservatives wanted something that looked like the status quo. It’s unlikely the Liberal government is going to deviate much from that stance. Obama said the U.S. cannot disengage from trade relations, “we’ve got to engage more.” But clearly engagement is limited to cases where the U.S. gets everything it wants.
Citizens in all three countries do need to be reminded of the benefits of free trade and continental co-operation.
The recent Angus Reid Institute poll that suggested a quarter of Canadians think NAFTA is a bad deal allows the people like the perennially wrong Council of Canadians to advance the case about the evils of free trade and globalization.
As worrying as a poll number of those opposed to the agreement was the proportion — nearly 50 per cent — who were neutral or unsure about the benefits of liberalized trade.
For those people, it was useful that the amigos emphasized trade over tariffs and implicitly backed the belief of the 18th-century economist Adam Smith that protectionism is the “great enemy of good management.”
“Isolationism is not a route towards progress; integration is,” said Peña Nieto — a message repeated by the other amigos in various forms.
That’s a noble sentiment. But when its proponents are guilty of posturing and empty talk, why should anyone listen?