During the Tuesday night debate between Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of the topics of debate was NAFTA. Tim Russert was the questioner and he did a good job of trying to force both of them to choose a side: are you for NAFTA or against it? Both tried to have it both ways. Even the New York Times is not afraid to point out that both candidates haven’t always been free-trade foes.
But most distressing to me is the fact that both spoke in ways that were highly insulting to Mexico and Canada. As this editorial on IBD states, “Sure, they’re pandering for Rust Belt votes. But do they ever consider the impact of their statements on our allies?”
Both candidates threaten to leave NAFTA unless its “labor and environmental standards” are strictly “enforced.” Enforcement? Hammer? What kind of criminals are these would-be G-men talking about? Evil ruffians out there committing . . . trade.
This not only insults our allies and trading partners, it signals to everyone else that America’s capricious, chest-thumping protectionist ally, Mexico, a third-world nation that is trying hard to transform itself into a first, bears the brunt of this coded jingoism.
That’s because trade pacts these days are about more than just trade — they represent long-term strategic partnerships. But after this talk, who’ll want to sign a permanent trade deal knowing they’ll be threatened by ambitious politicians every election season?
Mexico is not on the same level as the United States and it is probably much harder and more cost prohibitive for them to enforce labor and environmental standards. These candidates are ignoring reality if they think they can force Mexico to meet our higher standards.
