Difficulties of Modifying NAFTA
Provided by HG.org
The North American Free Trade Agreement has been the subject of possible changes through the Trump Administration, and there are difficulties in these processes as well as an argument that the proposed changes are not beneficial. The proposal states there would be a reduction in trade deficit between the United States and partners of Canada and Mexico.
While partners of the United States welcome an increase in relations and reduction of trade deficit, changing the NAFTA is not as simple as proposing the change. However, modernizing the document is possible through negotiations. The intentions for the objectives are considered unachievable. There are three major problems with the changes. There is a mistaken view of the loss of jobs. The information about the trade argument is either false or unknown. The proposals for increasing benefits to the environment are only words and actions are taken in contrast to this constantly. This would make any proposals filled with misinformation and mistakes.
One mistake in job losses is that the NAFTA is the reason there are problems for workers within the country. This misinformation is attempting to explain the United States trade deficits that started in 1994. The closure of factories around the country and persons not able to use the skills acquired are part of these details. However, the location of losses was in China and technological changes not with Mexico. Chinese exports are ranked among the highest in the world, and since 1999 over 2 million jobs were lost to the country due to the higher demand of cheaper products offered by China.
The Argument in False Trade
The policies and the redrafting of the NAFTA are in contradiction of each other. The agreement proposes a more open, impartial, secure and mutual access for both Canadian and Mexican markets with the United States. However, trade and importing goods has been restricted to American made and manufactured over any other country. The project of creating more jobs within the country and simultaneously offending and pushing away foreign allies is counterproductive to either end. Another part of the argument is that the market of consumers in the United States is twice as large as the other two countries when most of the industry jobs and trade are cooperative.
Countries import and export similar goods and consumables between each other for better quality and quantity. When restricting these activities, the action harms all involved. Previous NAFTA policies promoted a two-way exchange of products between the United States and Mexico. The goal was to increase trade for electrical machinery and devices as well as vehicles. This opened the market between all three countries and promoted growth greater than any single one had observed individually before the NAFTA initiative implemented the change. If the change restricts this, the industry could face further complications and international problems.
Another proposal explained by the Trump trade office is to increase environmental obligations and concerns into the public and throughout the country. These are currently part of the side agreements in the NAFTA, but this is in contradiction to what the Trump Administration has initiated through various policies and executive orders. While the environment has been noted as important, numerous changes have promoted dirty energy, an increase in fossil fuel use, a break away from the Paris agreement to hold energy companies responsible for their actions and similar concerns. The environmental protections within the NAFTA are well-established and do not need any changes. Through the United States, Mexico and Canada, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation has been governed.
Changes to promote and increase economic development have been contradicted through action rather than what has been said. The economy has been separated from foreign powers, and policies have changed imports, exports and what companies are permitted to buy and sell when connected to federal contracts. Other than the usual difficulties in changing the NAFTA, there appears to be no need to do so by the Administration. It is possible that legal concerns may increase when the NAFTA is amended, and the Administration should consult experts before implementing these alterations.
NAFTA Legal Help
To ensure the cooperation of Canada and Mexico, it may be necessary to hire legal assistance for the changes to NAFTA. It is important to understand what the alterations will lead to legally and if there is any concern about validity with the allies and how the changes will affect everyone. Legal representation in these matters may increase awareness of necessary details for everyone.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer.