Commentary: Why Trump’s short-term NAFTA ‘wins’ are tomorrow’s job losses

It’s been eight long weeks since the NAFTA renegotiations kicked off. It was an ambitious agenda for a short period of time, from incorporating the energy and e-commerce sectors to pushing for higher labor and environmental protections.

Yet, after four rounds of negotiations, the hopes of bringing the 25-year-old agreement into the 21st century are looking increasingly slim. At this point, successful negotiations may simply mean NAFTA’s existence when this all ends — and fond memories of a missed opportunity to have done more.

To truly understand what’s going on, it’s worth revisiting how we got here. During the presidential campaign period, Donald Trump made countering trade a tenet of his platform, singling out NAFTA as the “worst deal ever” and accusing Mexico of taking advantage of its northern neighbor. In the Oval Office, his tone remained largely unchanged. Even as President Trump’s team began establishing the renegotiating framework for NAFTA, the president never seemed to be sold on the idea. In the leaked call between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, he made it clear that he was coaxed into the negotiations.

COMMENTARY: Why Florida should reconsider its objections to NAFTA.

For most economists and trade analysts, this lax approach toward scrapping NAFTA appears to verge on the irrational. Most agree that the agreement could use an update, but this language is almost always wrapped in a recounting of NAFTA’s virtues: the rising U.S. exports, lower prices for consumers, and the 14 million jobs that it underpins across the United States. Industry executives will also echo this sentiment, with their supply chains weaving back and forth across the continent. At first glance then, it could feel remarkable that a president would review those same graphs, skim those same articles and still feel no qualms with withdrawing.

Except it’s rational. Ultimately, it comes down to what Trump is choosing to maximize: short-term politics or the long-term health of the economy. With each threat of withdrawal or deliberate destabilization, it’s becoming clear that Trump’s priority lands squarely on the political side. Attacking NAFTA during negotiations is clearly about short-term politics, fanning the flames of a subset of the population that views trade with Mexico not as a set of neat charts of imports and exports but as intertwined with vaguer concepts of globalization, immigration, and fairness. It’s not that Americans dislike trade; in fact, most believe it’s a good thing for the country, including more than six out of 10 Trump supporters. But each day, it’s becoming clear that the issue is not always trade itself but also with whom we trade. And for many, Mexico is the villain.

For decades, cheap political points have been scored by accusing Mexico of ripping off U.S. workers and stealing their jobs, and images abound of Mexicans getting rich off Americans empty factories. It is in this context, where feelings of unfairness and anger loom larger than statistics and models — no matter how accurate — that bilateral trade becomes decoupled from economic reality. This makes economic policy depend more on its political appeal than on the substantive arguments, a confusing balancing game for negotiators and the United States’ economic partners.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: Viewpoints delivers the latest perspectives on current events.

All this to say that we have two divergent objectives playing out simultaneously: Trump is maximizing short-term politics while NAFTA negotiators are working away — or engaging in tense stalemates — ostensibly to improve the technical side of the agreement, thus improving upon the region’s competitiveness and ability to create jobs and prosperity. In the tug of these competing interests, the United States is running the risk of completely pulling apart NAFTA and the economic system that it has fostered — and in the process endangering our ability to lead economically around the world.

With the negotiations stalling, it’s time to be honest with ourselves. This is not just a problem of finding a compromise or doing what’s best for our country; this is a story about an administration that sees no political benefit in negotiating NAFTA in good faith and doesn’t value economic reality. As the president might tweet: “So sad. So pathetic.”

Garza is with the law firm of White & Case in Mexico City. He served as the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico from 2002-2009.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Facebook comments: March 23, 2018
Facebook comments: March 23, 2018

Austin-based Bumble is being sued by Match Group, Tinder’s parent company, which accuses it of patent infringement and stealing trade secrets, according to a report by 512tech reporter Lori Hawkins. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges that Bumble’s app is virtually identical to Tinder, which...
Opinion: Did Putin order the Salisbury hit?

Britain has yet to identify the assassin who tried to murder the double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, England. But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson knows who ordered the hit. “We think it overwhelmingly likely that it was (Russian President Vladimir Putin’s) decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the...
Opinion: The principle behind anti-Trump pragmatism

WASHINGTON — Former Rep. Barney Frank and the writer William F. Buckley Jr. could hardly have been more at odds in their political views. The Massachusetts Democrat remains a staunch liberal while Buckley was the intellectual founder of modern conservatism. But they had something important in common: Each wanted his side to win elections and...
Bomber is dead, but case not over with many questions that linger
Bomber is dead, but case not over with many questions that linger

Central Texans are exhaling a collective sigh of relief at the news that suspected serial bomber Mark A. Conditt is dead. For much of March, the 23-year-old Pflugerville resident held the city captive as it held its breath awaiting the next explosion. In all, five bombs detonated, not counting the one he turned on himself early Wednesday morning. Add...
Young: This week on: ‘(U.S.) House Makeover’
Young: This week on: ‘(U.S.) House Makeover’

The Republican Party just spent $10 million on one congressional election in Pennsylvania and reaped nothing but agony. What it spent amounted to $100 per vote cast for the loser (Donald Trump). You might claim that the loser in Pennsylvania’s congressional District 18 was Rick Saccone, who lost to Democrat Conor Lamb. That’s true technically...
More Stories