GLOBAL CENTRE STAGE
The ongoing NAFTA renegotiation are certainly part of reshuffl ing, and whatever the outcome may be, its implications will not just heavily affect the trade relations between the North America countries, but also the wider geopolitical theatre.
Of all the criticisms one might have about the current US administration, we cannot but acknowledge that Trump has unmasked a certain background of hypocrisy in contemporary international relations. It might be, in fact, psychologically reassuring to continue deluding ourselves with the liberal dream of a stable international order where the divide between good and bad countries is clearly set, but this is far from current realities of international politics. On the contrary, today’ s political trends across the West underscore the fact that that dream has broken down against an economic recovery that has come though belated and timid. The established institutions in which the West had placed its hope and commitment are not perceived anymore as capable to address people’ s issues or of accommodating people’ s interests. The crushing of that dream has produced a bewildering and frantic reshuffle of established certainties, which reverse the trend of shared international efforts and shift it towards shared national efforts. In other words, Western countries today appear reluctant at financing and committing to international institutions and have decided to take the reins of their future into their own hands. Trump has expressed such a trend the hard way, due to his personal exuberance and his disruptive communication strategy, but he has simply uncovered an already stewing Pandora’ s Box. The ongoing NAFTA renegotiation are certainly part of such reshuffling, and whatever the outcome may be, its implications will not just heavily affect the trade relations between the North America countries, but also the wider geopolitical theatre.
So, why has NAFTA been dropped? At first glance, the fact that the US pulled out of the agreement doesn’ t look overly surprising considering Trump’ s overall strategy. I will call it a‘ go-brake-result’ strategy. It seems, in fact, that we can identify a certain pattern in Trump’ s policing so far, which often manifests itself with an initial incendiary statement— more often a tweet, a subsequent reassuring slowdown aimed at toning down the previous stance, and finally the achievement of the result which is often a compromise between the first and second stage. In other words, Trump’ s ability simply consists of exploiting the chaos generated by contradictory statements and getting his hands on the prize while everyone still debates on his Twitter profile. Although the NAFTA affair is still in process, the same procedure seems to apply. In this instance, the apparent dismantlement of agreements perceived to be the symbol of past administrations depicted as not doing the US interests any good, seems to be fully consistent with Trump’ s narrative of taking back control and putting Americans’ first. The harsh aversion towards Canada embodies the‘ go’ phase, in which the disruptive decision of ripping NAFTA off reflected not only the profound divide with Trudeau, but also a symmetric re-alignment with Mexico and its new President Obrador, who is due to be sworn in this fall. The‘ brake’ effort is carried out by the actual negotiators, who have been trying these past few weeks to soften the respective Presidents’ statements and reach a measured agreement, notwithstanding Trump’ s invariably announced will to exclude Canada and replace NAFTA with the now agreed US-Mexico deal. While it is still too early to address the outcome of these negotiations, it projects clearly the US preference for bilateral agreements, on the assumption that negotiating directly with individual partners will prove more effective than participating at crowded tables where everyone’ s interests will likely be diluted by compromises.
The thorny mantle of the negotiations has been recently de facto passed to the new Mexican President. Obrador has tried to reconcile with Trump after months in which the yeasty US-Mexico relations were dominated by issues such as‘ the wall’ and vitriolic accusations exchanged between Trump and Pena Nieto. However, that is easier said than done, considering how difficult a legacy Nieto is leaving behind. What many fear is that the hard approach adopted by Pena Nieto against Trump ' s claims might be replaced by a certain docility so far manifested by the Morena leader. Last July, Obrador sent Trump a letter in which he invited him
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Diplomatist • Vol 6 • Issue 9 • September 2018, Noida • 17