tv Mexico and NAFTA CSPAN August 15, 2017 9:00am-11:07am EDT
do two things, one at the high school level with your peers and the other thing, try to connect with industry. >> thank you so much. >> i'll say, i'll speak for myself. if you stay here afterwards, we'll-- i'll give you my contact information. would love to give you ideas on all the different programs i'm aware of that you could get involved in. because it is what robin says, you're going to have to find the passions of the other people and connect into it. we can give you a range of things, and-- >> kind a good summer camp, that's short-term, so many cool ones out there and that's another suggestion. >> yes, you can be our champion out there, we'd love it. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> tomorrow, negotiators from the united states, mexico, and canada will begin efforts to modernize the north american free trade agreement, nafta. right now mexico's chief negotiator and mexican
officials are getting ready to discuss the upcoming negotiations. we're live at the wilson center in washington. the program is expected to start at any moment. >> you're crazy and no one is going to come and maybe this is sort of important enough. maybe our existential questions will bring an audience and we had the idea bringing the mexico's negotiator ken smith to come, and it was a cheeky question, and he said yes, this is extraordinary and ken said last week, i don't think i can do it. so i apologize for misleading you. it was not intentional, but we have got an absolutely fabulous panel for you nonetheless. and let me just run through very quickly from left to right, as i see it, fred burkeson, a senior fellow at
the peterson institute for international economics. thank you for being with us. it's great you agreed to provide a repost to some of the mexican perspectives near. very welcome. and secondly francis, known to most of you here, currently a partner at white and case and previously served as und undersecretary of trade. and an old friend of the wilson center is here. lmm consulting and held multiple posts with the government and of course, my colleague, my deputy director, chris wilson, who is known to you for his work on nafta. on u.s.-mexico economic fairs and border affairs and i'm duncan wood. very nice to see you. let me say a couple of comments before we get into the -- sort
of the substance here. there's obviously been an enormous amount of anticipation. my first page of notes says, "it's here", and it's a strange moment, but at this time last year here at wilson center we were holding a series of conversations undered current administration how can we improve nafta. we were talking about improving modernizing nafta on the understanding that somebody different would be in the white house, that's what we assumed. a modernization of nafta is desperately needed. and all of a sudden, hey, pres presto, we have an opportunity to do it. there was a nice piece in the global mail up in canada, this is a great opportunity to secure north america's competitiveness. the second point is, of course, this comes with it an enormous
amount of anxiety, anxiety about whether or not this can be a successful negotiation, anxiety about whether the u.s. executive branch will stick with it, anxiety about questions of timing and political change. we also see there's enormously complex negotiation and many of us here in this room have said the past few months, how can we possibly get this done, in a six month period which seems to be the preferred time period on the part of the negotiators, at least from the mexican and u.s. side, the canadians have a different perspective, of course, and let me recognize my colleague laura around here, she may have stepped out for a second. i'm grateful for the canada institute providing support for us on these issues. the timing question is one thing we may run up against the question do we do it fast or right. and that could be a very important choice and i'm
looking forward to discussing that with our panel. we have a very encouraging phenomenon of convergence between the three sides. and we go back to january or to november of last year, there was an enormous amount of concern, could we ever get to a point where at least we were on the same-- in the same book, if not on the same page. and with regards to international trade negotiations, and it seems as though we've got there which i think is tremendously encouraging. and then there's all of the problems and challenges and obstacles, many of which are known, but there are a number that are unknown out there and we don't know how things are really going to turn out if these negotiations become public, if we get a great deal of buy-in into the negotiations, if certain things are tweeted. if then we get a reaction from the u.s. president, which might have a reaction from the
mexican president, et cetera, et cetera. what we can say is now that it's here, now that we're here, we've come a long way in six months and i think that's a very encouraging part of the story. and talking of coming a long way, it's worth remembering how far mexico has come since nafta was negotiated and i know it's a story you've heard a million times, but just to remind us, before the nafta, it was very comm common in mexico to have everyday goods have a price control on them. for a committee to set the prices of basic commodities. it was an economy dominated by state-run enterprises. it was an economy that would not open to foreign direct investment. the changes that took place during the 1980's because-- largely because of latin american debt crisis and locked in by nafta. those are things that we kind of take for granted these days.
but it's an extraordinary journey. now, another point is to remember, of course, that the economic reforms that have taken place in mexico since 2012 have really tried to build upon the success of nafta. now we have the opportunity to lock in some of those reforms again through an international treaty, international negotiation. so, without any further ado from me i would like to ask our panelists to give opening comments and i'm going to begin with lusma. i know you've got prepared comments. i'd like our panelists to begin by focusing sort of what they see are the priorities, but also to mention what are the red lines they see from the u.s. and from the mexican point of view then we'll come to a conversation afterwards on questions of convergence, of convention, timing and complexity.
the floor is yours. >> thank you. well, thank you, duncan, and thank you for the invitation to be here with you. i would like to thank the woodrow wilson center, and thank you for thinking about me, and i had a fantastic experience in this place, so it's always a great pleasure to be able to be back with you. and, well, today, i really feel very privileged to be able to be part of this nafta discussion. i think that the nafta discussion is always welcome. and it's very timely given what grew between our two countries in terms of trade, job creation and integration, but also in terms of the place that we as a region represent in the global economy. it's more-- it's even more timely when we think about the fact that we will see the beginning of the
process that i hope will allow us to move forward toward deeper integration and a better understanding what north america means for our countries. having been part of the government group that took part in the negotiations. thank you, miss hills, for being with us, i was part of the little ones running around with papers trying to support negotiators, in these negotiations 25 years ago. i really have to say that i would never ever, ever, ever have expected to see a proposition on the u.s. side to renegotiate nafta based on the preposition of having it address a u.s. deficit and having to address the question of manufacturing jobs lost in the u.s. it's still-- i never would have expected to be the u.s., the u.s. side that
would have been the source of distrust and questioning nafta like we have been presented with this year. i have to say that it still puzzles me to see how both questions, the deficit and jobs question, through a trade negotiation and through the nafta. no question that it will be a daunting task for canada and for mexico to sit down with the u.s., when it seems that president trump views this opportunity as payback time, and also has outlined an agenda that is clearly tainted with protectionist and nationalist perspectives. however, as duncan mentioned at the beginning, i do believe that nafta has yielded amazing results. after more than 23 years in place, nafta has delivered economic results beyond what any one of us expected at that time. beyond the most opportunistic expectations.
nafta created a 19 trillion regional market, with consumers, every day we trade more than $2.5 billion. at the time when nafta was negotiated, we at mexico aspired to export 10 billion every month. let me tell you the exports lment to more than 1.3 million every day. in the past 23 years trade between the three partners went from roughly $290 billion in 19 the 3, to more than $1.2 trillion last year and also in terms of the u.s. and canadian fdi, amount to more than 200 billion. represents close to 20% of mexico's gdp. so, i'd like to center my remarks on five quick points. the first one is that in these negotiations, process, mexico
is not ready to be considered anything else, but a u.s. and a canadian trading partner. at the table, mexico and canada are equal partners with equal rights and equal obligations. why ? because after 23 years, mexico is the u.s. second largest trading partner and mexico is the second large est largest pa behind canada. we, today the united states trades more in goods and services with mexico and canada than it does with japan, south korea, brazil, russia, india and china altogether. mexico's also the u.s. second source of imports only after china. we account for 14% of total u.s. imports from the world.
in addition, production of automobiles, electronics, machinery and appliances have greatly benefitted from protection sharing across the three countries and nafta has been able to reduce costs and become more effective. my second point is that mexico should look for more and not for less nafta. in the early 1990's, nafta created a structural reform in mexico. since its implementtation, nafta has been a source for change in economic institutions. nafta was a really transformational experience for mexico. transformed the shape of the mexican economy and opened the door to a young democracy after 70 years of a one-party rule. nafta has also been one of mexico's most important engines
of economic growth, given the relevance at international trade and foreign investments represent for our country. i can tell you that nafta is embedded in mexico's every day life. and the last 23 years under the nafta, nafta created a wide concensus in mexico that an open economy is the way to go, that we need more, not less competition, and that we want to be global players. what mexico should look for in this negotiation is ways to improve the agreement. there's plenty of room for improvement and plenty of room for full implementation. just take a quick glance at the history of the integration and we will know as long as there's a common vision and shared leadership there can be deeper regional integration. i can tell you that in mexico there is no one political party and no one political leader that thinks that he's-- it could be a good policy
option to walk out of nafta or that mexico should respond to trump's aggressions by closing or border or building a fortress. in fact, a recent study showed that close to 50% of mexicans have a positive upon of nafta and the trade relationship with the u.s. and only 16% have a negative one. moreover, in a survey, from march of this year, 73% of mexicans surveyed opposed to getting rid of nafta. this does mott mean, obviously, that nafta have not yielded winners and losers. in mexico, it means that overall, the country has undergone a deep transformation in areas. mexico today is in a very strong position to push in these negotiations for the establishment of 21 century roles.
20th century roles are not enough, are not the way and reversing those roles is not an option, either. mexico is in a position for the reforms that the president passed in to 12 for mexico. the structural reforms on sectors of education, telecommunication, energy and financial sector and those reforms have placed mexico in an about thor position to contribute to a stronger and more competitive north america. these set of reforms in addition allow mexico to negotiate new issue areas such as energy, services, e-commerce or telecommunications. my third point is that nafta 2.0 could be the latest structural reform in mexico that we need. why do i say this? in mexico, nafta made it more
evident the huge disparities that have characterized mexican development for centuries. for mexico, this is an ideal opportunity to democratize trade. a nafta 2.0 will lead to a sector where regions take part in globalization. today more than half of mexican exports are done by six states on the northern border. 60% of total exports are represented by two sectors, automotive and electronics, and only 45 part of 5 million. and nafta 2.0 will lead mexico to create a better business environment. nafta should be the opportunity to reduce risk taking for international trade and also for business in general. my fourth point is that nafta has to stop being a negative term.
nafta has to be rethought, restated, and revalued. the late robert pastor had an idea of north america as a region that can lead the world economy. maybe one of the reasons we're renegotiating nafta today in a contrasting context from the 1990's, is that we never really took the time to explain the value of north america and how it benefits each one of us. today, probably one of our biggest challenges is how to restore the north american idea as a truly integration scheme, countries are better off with it rather than without it. however, we need to rethink how to reposition nafta not as a result of an agenda where each counts its losses. they urgently need a common
vision from three countries that shows that together we not only add, but multiply gains from a highly competitive time. nafta has offered the region a clear set of rules and disciplines that created transparent and predictable business environment. nafta locks in a mexican model of economic openness, economic liberalization and competition. i also want to underscore that naf nafta-- visionary and that was at that time in chapter 11 this mechanism was stating that investors said mechanism, that chapter 20 state to state mechanism. and chapter 19 on trade, have been without a question one of nafta's most important pillars
for effective implementation. the region has a lot to lose if the u.s. walks out of nafta. when the nafta became effective north america accounted for more than 20% of world trade. today we have lost to the rest of the world. today nafta represents close to 18% of world trade. the agreement needs to offer the kind of growth that are required by a 21st century where global production sharing is a name of the game. mexico has a lot to lose. mexico is the largest export market. 80%, $300 billion last year and 30% of mexico's gdp. u.s. investment represents 40% of mexico's fdi.
jobs, industrial production, services, energy, and many other activities in the region have a lot to lose if we tamper with nafta. a vast majority of business groups in the u.s. realize how important nafta is for them and have made specific proposals for nafta. for many in the u.s., the l lowest denomination or expectation of nafta's renegotiation, whatever it results, it will do no harm. if the u.s. decides to walk out of the nafta, which we hope it will not happen, it will certainly affect regional value change, jobs, economic growth. hour, the agreement will remain in place for trade between canada and mexico. if as a result of this negotiation we show we can overcome this delicate situation, the countries will
have to look at nafta-- bob zuellig and general petraeus argued that they must witch vis-a-vis nafta to a central u.s. policy. the question is how do we revitalize nafta and integrate those left behind into the benefits of globalization. nafta countries need to develop a new regional strategy and such strategy needs to consider a few key elements. the integration of the north american market is the way to boost the region's competitiveness, job creation, business opportunities and innovation. we need to reconcile.
nafta has been torn between the driving force and breaking point that u.s. needs to build a fortress to secure borders. borders, more needs to be for-- a seamless door-to-door operation should be facilitated. we have a young population. our average age is 26 years old. north america, increasingly requires qualified human resources to meet production of the region. and they have look to maintain a dynamic region so we need to think about training and development of human resources to meet the needs for qualified personnel. i believe the integration will
be incomplete until we sort labor markets. this is something at that could take generation, given the huge income gap between mexico and two partners to the north. however, there are some steps that can be taken in this regard and they're alreadyar the late robert pasture suggested to improve the provisions on professional facilitate and expedite obtaining nafta visas for professionals and offer them for a longer period and create an expanded american and mexican program. i'd like to close my remarks, in the absence of tpp, the new rules that will be solved from a nafta to 2.o may become the new standard of international trade. in the early 1990's. the disciplines that we
negotiated in nafta became the state of the art trade rules in new areas such as trading agriculture, trading services, investment and intellectual property to game a few. nafta was at the lab where new rules were developed-- the negotiations that will start tomorrow will be closely followed by the rest of the world. the rules and disciplines at that we give ourselves in north america will offer a very clear idea of the direction that global trade may take in the future. we have a responsibility beyond the nafta. mexico needs nafta and mexico needs a strong nafta. mks will face presidential elections next year on june 2nd. we have been able to finally pass a series of structural reforms that will yield results in the medium to long-term. however, corruption and
transparency, the rule of law, crime and a weak judiciary are a serious challenge that are working against mexico's competitiveness. if mexico is competing to a stronger region, we need sustainable and long-term solutions. and nafta may have been there in 2000. and today, it addresses rule of law questions in mexico. boosting north american integration reyears political leadership. returning legitimacy to the process mae-- may be the biggest challenge. >> thank you. a vision of what is possible and emphasizing the many gains that have been secured after two decades of nafta. i'd like to have--
if you could address this question of the priorities and red line that you see in these negotiations from the mexican point of view. >> thank you, good morning to you, everybody. i want to thank the wilson center and duncan for the opportunity to be here. as you know after many months of great uncertainty, finally they will talk tomorrow and it's been a bumpy road because from the mexican point of view there was a great uncertainty about, for instance, the note is that the u.s. will be sending to congress, will consider the t.p.a., 2015, or if what's about the new epa. and confirming the one for the nafta review, i will say that
there are opportunities where we believe we have common grounds. it's important to remember that the way that mexico considers that, to update nafta was the tpt. it's important to remember that nafta is not popular in the u.s. for the last year, it's been maybe ten years. i remember when former president obama was running for president raising the nafta issue. so maybe we didn't do our homework back then and we haven't done it yet, but as he said, we didn't ask to be sitting at the table to renegotiate nafta, but what it is, we have some important issues to share. we have a border that's over 3,000 feet, we have a great integratio
integration, and i think it's in the best of the three countries it try to modernize. and when i mean three countries we're talking three parties and over the last month, also, there was like a discussion, was it going to be under an umbrella that would consider three parties, but the u.s. with canada and mexico, different key issues. of course, there are some concerns that we don't share, there are no common concerns in canada, mexico and the u.s. for instance when we talk about security, when we talk about border issues or infrastructure. so regarding the priorities, i would say that if both administration in this case the u.s. and mexico, is willing to try to conclude this process by early next year, i will say that one of the main--
one of the main reasons or element that she should try to consider is the tpt language, not consider tpt initiative because of course, president trump decided to withdraw day one of his administration, but there is a lot of language that we can utilize. and even though that trade negotiations do not move as quick as technology and e-commerce, the truth that the latest agreement that has been negotiated was tp tcht . ...
participate as a part of the national trade. one of the new priorities to bring them on board. the sac and e-commerce in sun but it comes back to the internet access. i am not talking about the meanings. duty-free shipments. we are talking about other opportunities to reflect and incorporate all the energy forms in the last 24 years.
no longer afraid to negotiate with the u.s. nowadays we believe we have a strong trading team of negotiators. they will be sitting tomorrow at the table. they also have a proud experience. i do believe that if the two countries are able to mobilize the efforts where we may not have conversions, we will be able to deliver by the end of the year regardless of the issues they recognize. of course i will say in my view with the first one is wages is not an issue that should be concerned even as a possibility
to negotiate. in the case of mexico, we have reforms and we improve far framework over the last few years in 2012 and there's one other way -- so wages should be added discussions and should be a red line. second, the issue related i will say is a strange issue because issues with the trade during the three or four years and they remember the senior official with the mexican government the
original change to a very important person. and i was unable to explain, so i set about, it is the new narrative. so i said okay, so again i think the deficit will talk about trade management as something we can see what is a u.s. proposal for any trade management anyway. the object is were relieved with the message that they want to bring the canadian and mexican legal framework to the u.s.
also the meaningless privation they want to increase and also want to add the content in order to be able -- [inaudible] that is something that is very important and there are many provisions reconsider also consider all the concerns some have raised over the last few years am not negotiated with the best approach, but maybe there
are some new conclusions in that point of view. thank you. >> fred, if i can turn to you and give a reaction to does days. >> you ask me to present the u.s. point of view. it's obviously a u.s. point of view. you will see i have a few nasty things to say about the administration's point of view. we have each of us by harkening back to history a little bit and i want to do that only in the sense of recognizing my u.s. college who is the chief u.s. negotiator to carla hill who was our ustr at the time if only we were so lucky now. we are graced by her appearance.
i want to suggest three basic points about the upcoming negotiations. i start by sharing a few that were laid out so nicely about benefit of nafta, how much has been gaining in the positive opportunities that exist. it is true that there lies the head a new opportunity to strengthen competitiveness and performance of economies, improve our ability with a tough world of competition. so i'm not going to repeat or dwell on any of that. by some of you know, we've published a great deal to the economics laid out in-depth analyses of many topics being negotiated and all of that will be positive. what i want to do is to just three areas we will focus on as
these negotiations proceed. the first is failure is an option. it is true. the president proudly told us four months ago he decided to withdraw. he got talked out of it by accommodations that leaders of the countries in the american who dislikes the idea, but he's been very close and if i don't get what i want. and so, failure is an option. and that means it is critically important for the other countries in the negotiation. you refocus obviously on mexico to keep foremost in everybody's mind how costly that will be to the united states.
why do i say failure is an option? basically because the united states under the current administration goes into the negotiation with two very false premises on which they base their approach. the first has said memorably by candidate trumpet the election that nafta was the greatest disaster ever negotiated. that was patently false, incorrect based on no analysis, including by them, that it's ever been represented by anybody at any time. it's a false premise and we have to be clear that the world knows this. secondly, as francisco said, the explicit negotiating objective right at a month ago was to use the negotiation to reduce the u.s. trade deficit. francisco said that is rather
strange. trade imbalances are macro problems. you have to respond in macro ways. trade policy, you are not a feasible way to reduce trade imbalances. in particular, addressing bilateral trade imbalances is impossible because if you did succeed, the imbalance which i shift elsewhere. now, in the case of nafta, this intellectually absurd proposition is in addition practically absurd. why? because mexico is a bigger deficit country than the united states. mexico's global current account deficit is around or little beyond 3% of gdp. bigger than not commit the united states. mexico is not a surplus country like china or germany or japan
or korea. but in the deficit country itself. so the united states is asking the country to further increases deficit to reduce our deficit which is even better. in short, it just doesn't pass the smell test. in practical terms, even if you don't believe the conceptual underpinning. the point is the u.s. goes into the negotiation with twofold, essentially absurd premises and back, to put it mildly makes for a tough negotiation. but it does mean again echoing the president ascertained, that is if he is not satisfied, that his absurd premises are to his satisfaction, he will pull out. that is what i say failure is an option. it's why it's so critical for
everybody around the world, certainly everybody in the united states, but particularly the negotiating partners to just keep reminding people, gently, politely, diplomatically, forcefully and clearly that if the u.s. were to withdraw, the cost of the united states would be huge. we know that the tariff increases would be twice as high for mexico as the united states if we just wait back to the msn era. mexico has not found its tariffs in the wto below their high levels that mexico could actually go up five times as much as the united states but i don't think you the time to wait for mexico to keep that reminder in the minds of the u.s. negotiators as the negotiation proceeds.
all sites of other nasty things could be done if nafta fails. the fact the u.s. would be a big loser itself from the failure has got to be a big deterrent to the failure if that is kept clearly in mind. secondly, what could be a possible way to reconcile these premises when the u.s. goes in and people like her two earlier speakers have an idea. is there some way to satisfy at least in some sense the u.s. object data without doing violence to sensible principles of economics, relations between the countries of competitiveness as a whole. each trade negotiation has to be based on the principle of reciprocity. it is politically essential, but
in economic terms as well. reciprocity does have two meanings. there is what we call global reciprocity and what we call marginal reciprocity. marginal reciprocity tends to be the normal and all of trade negotiations. that means we each reduce our barriers by similar percentages. they cut tariffs 20%, 50%, whatever it may be about as marginal reciprocity. however, the concept to trump people have explicitly said they pursue, which is global reciprocity. that means you want to wind up with the same level of trade barriers as the other guy. and so that means if one party starts with higher barriers and is it to cut more ticket down to an equivalent level at the end of the day. marginal reciprocity of the day
has been typical at home, but one could argue and i think the country could respectively go home and say we got a deal. dell in the case of that nafta renegotiation, there is a pot to go possibility. tariffs are basically zero, so there is no wiggle room there. but the restrictive index shows that mexican nontariff measures are about three times as great as those in the united states. roughly 15% try to equate their tariff equivalent. so it is conceivable the following good trade and economic been supposed, presented itself national interest of course based on cheaper imports over competitive imports, mexico could conceivably reduce some of its
non-tariff barriers more than these u.s. are the areas they don't have any at the moment and that would lead us towards political reciprocity, which the tribe administration has a great victory, saying we got a good deal and therefore back off the extreme views. that i think might be a way out of the negotiators can find specific barriers to reductions. our two mexican speakers have noted that since nafta was originated, mexico has conducted a number of reforms in key areas and i think are susceptible to reduction does not tariff measures, which would not be really any political cost to the mexican government by mexican
politicians, but would help serve the object is that producing disparity between the two countries and by the by, could be argued might have a little positive faith in certain they would expand u.s. headquarters. the second point is maybe there are ways within an otherwise possibly not conversion goals have ordered to achieve a successful outcome. the third point is to simply remind everybody that what happens and that nafta negotiation will be very important we affect it by what is happening in other trade negotiations pursued both by the nafta partners, but in the rest of the world as well. maria reminded as that the rest of the world is watching the nafta negotiation to see
possible models and guidelines of the future. the first is also true that nafta negotiators have to be watching what's going on in the rest of the world. for example, the u.s. is about to launch a negotiation with korea. it is called renegotiation, but the fact of again some of the things the u.s. is seeking what amount to renegotiation than significant changes. the case in point is the currency chapter. the united states will have high on his priority list in the korean negotiations list. if you read the last several semi annual report for currency manipulation that all about, you will find maria is the number one country in the crosshairs of the u.s. treasury for the administration in respect to the risk of currency manipulation.
maybe two of the three criteria has three criteria is, federal monitoring of list, but that issue will be very high on the u.s. agenda in the korean talks. therefore, in the nafta talks covering the administration is going to want to encourage the chapter not because they use canada with mexico in the currency manipulator, but that then could be applied in korea ended to revise tpp down the road with other past and potentially future manipulators because the currency issue is a huge political issue on the process if any of these things are going to make it through the congress eventually ended to fruition. bash is one example. there will be other issue areas
for so much of the hotlines will affect what goes on in nafta both in terms of its overall policy approach. however, it's not only with the u.s. is doing elsewhere that counts. it is like canada and mexico are doing in a big way. i want to tip my hat to mexico as perhaps now the world's leader is negotiating trade agreements with other countries. a big mexico a couple of years ago in terms of having more fta than anybody else. mexico has certainly been the leader in terms of opening up its market, diversifying its trade, building its network of business and trade contacts around the world and is
continuing, as they understand that, to negotiate with a couple other countries, korea and several others. now if that nafta talks were unveiled, not only would the u.s. face an increase in mexico's barriers, that they sharply increase degrees for other countries in the mexican market against the united states because of all of mexico's other agreements. so the u.s. would be double in the fact that mexico has been wise enough for all these other deals and is now doing other deals would add to that at all. my final piece of unsolicited advice to my friends and mexico is keep it up. keep doing all those other deals. the wonderful term kayak xu, foreign pressure and our country to do the right things they had to do anyway.
mexico's sda vis-à-vis the united states. keep up the pressure, particularly mexico and canada could work with japan to keep the tpp alive. that's more in the united states. now you would have mexico free trade. all of these combinations which would adversely affect the united states. i invented a concept can cover 20 years ago called competitive liberalization which has countries liberalize, they generate huge incentives for other countries to emulate or join the party or otherwise protect themselves against having the preferences that disadvantage them. so it applies here. it was thought of as the u.s. putting pressure on other countries around the world.
with the tpp, what the pacific alliance, with the bilaterals, keep it up. keep all of that going because that's very important affect in the united states, hopefully in the white house, certainly in the business community about what happened if we don't maintain and in fact strengthen the trade we have. a few thoughts on the best outcome obviously is a traditional trade negotiation that will strengthen the mexican economy which maria describes so wonderfully. if the united states and the trump administration really want to strengthen the u.s. trade balance towards mexico, there is only one obvious way to do it. strength and the mexican economy
it has a stronger peso. the u.s. will be more price competitive. that's the way monkeying around with schools of origin in various minutiae is to go to the big stuff, which is a proven success in the past. >> thank you, fred. last but not least i will turn to chris to fill in any gaps you've noticed, but to also hear your dad on what you see. >> thank you, duncan. thank you from the great presentation. i would keep it simple. what i want to do is keep a simpler view of mexican strategy heading into negotiation and thinking about at vis-à-vis the u.s. perspective, which are some of the words are strange flawed, conflict team. you have on the one hand and
object to that of liberalizing and on the other hand you have a series of a checked insert potentially restrict being protectionist perhaps. the mexican strategy of mexican interests, how did they run into that conflict and u.s. perspective right now. for me, the starting point is a really simple one. mexico says 80% of its exports to the united states. mexico depends on market access to the united states any significant way. there is an asymmetry. trade is balanced, but in terms of the proportion of the economy that depends on trade with the united states or with mexico is a bilateral trading relationship. that means that when mexico started to hear the campaigns come especially after the election comment that its market access to the united states is at risk. the united states to united states today to take very seriously about how it would negotiate the prospects, to
withdraw from nafta, et cetera and sends the trump administration from the camp paint on has been pretty insistent in the language to seek to renegotiate every negotiation does not work, they will withdraw. for a long time we had that language. the basic response we heard early on and we are starting to hear it again from new mexico in terms of strategy was mexico had a concern that just and economic negotiations in trade negotiations with the united states, mexico may not have the leverage it needs to get to an acceptable outcome. and it started to talk about the comprehensive dialogue with the future of the entire relationship from the secretary to say that mexico feels quite a bit in terms of security cooperation, and never a
terrorist attack on the united states across the u.s.-mexico border and recently has done an awful lot in terms of dealing with the movement of central americans to mexico to the united states. in 2015, mexico deported more central americans than the united states did. it's about 50/50 right now in terms to the affair being done. mexico is interesting that issue are complex. they are multiple, sometimes conflicting in themselves. you better believe there's a strong recent mexico is conflict and with that task for repeatedly mexico's assistant in that issue. mexico has put everything on the table so we can get to an outcome that is successful. what this really represents is the compartmentalization of the u.s.-mexico relationship. we have actually her fruit for decades seeing that it was an important relationship, a complex relationship, the number
of u.s. agencies and mexico is probably not surpass by the u.s. agencies representing so many diverse interests and mexico. pacific compartmentalize the issues previously in order to ensure the conflict on one thread around security cooperation wouldn't get in the way of the economic relationship, vice versa down the line. mexico says right on this issue is so important to such a top-tier national interest to us that we are going to do away with it. we are willing to, if necessary, do away with the process that ensures the relationship as a whole would move forward despite conflicts across the areas which are natural and i was going to occur in the complex relationship. that is where mexico is that how to deal with this on a very basic level and that shows us
this comes up through stating very clearly that market access is the fundamental breadline that they have a negotiations. that can mean different things across different areas. the fundamental indy would be of limited market access in a profit of breadline to mexico. requirements not 62.5% in the auto industry could be understood to be trade restrict
teen because of what exists there really do rely on a certain percentage by the region to our regional production change. another would be eliminating right now within that, there are limitations on how safeguards can be used with tariffs imposed on limits imposed on trade to prevent the imports are impacting negatively the u.s. industry and market access. the dispute settlement mechanism, the ability to challenge domestic rulings and countervailing duties, to create the panel to review them, getting rid of and the last two elimination of the space guard exclusion is a direct limitation on market access to getting the united states space and more
flexibility to express this protectionist impulses. that's the limiting assets. they are threatened during the negotiation, heading down the road of things being more restrict it rather than more free, it is going to have to seek to use its leverage both within the negotiations, the fact that mexico if we did call back has greater flexibility to raise tariffs. that leverage within the negotiation, within the trade sphere. mexico may also feel the need to go well beyond that and include the rest of the relationship in the negotiations for the environment around the negotiation. that could work. it could work out just fine but the leverage they have there. it's a risk again because the
reason we compartmentalize was to prevent double u.s.-mexico relationship being tanked by an issue you could potentially enter into a spiral of escalation were multiple issues are on the table and we could all end up losing quite a bit, not just to economics. but also in terms of the other benefit the united states gets out of its relationship with mexico. we have to be clear about the seriousness of that risk as we head into negotiations. mexico so far has really responded to some tough rhetoric coming out of the united states very mildly, very diplomatically, very carefully. the intention there has been to maintain dialogue with the discussion based on a win-win sort of philosophy. but i guess the point i want to make here is very simple as it
enters into election season, really i would say at the end of this here come the beginning of next year is not really starts to ramp up. the willingness of the ruling party, including the president himself had to accept that, to take the diplomatic line in responding to u.s. rhetoric will be declining quite a bit. denis, the domestic political need to respond in past terms would increase. you know, the process of negotiation or a turning point in reaching an agreement within a year. it's a complex negotiation. we've heard from our two today that entering into the canadian side or the mexican side and
would include negotiating complex and hopefully actually be integrated. they bring things in front tpp to move back on certain prospects and there are some that will need to be tackled. that presents a somewhat grim picture that the object is of interest. i do want to close out saying that despite all of that, actually rather optimistic you can reach of moderate agreement that is acceptable to each side. i want to quickly say why despite everything i said i believe that. it's because u.s.-mexican and canadian interests on trade are fundamentally aligned. not just talking about politics, but in a row level of a real
economic level are just her quite well aligned. that will and does go into politics. we have more than a true in dollars of trade each year across north america. that means by definition there at thousands of companies that depend on trade. it means that there are over 10 million jobs in the united states that depend on trade with canada and mexico. you have built-in this huge stakeholder group that depends on daft, that has over the years come to depend deeper and deeper and more and more on nafta, pushing us in the dominical -- domestic political process toward trade to keep united states on track towards a successful renegotiation. more than just a big relationship, it's also a deep relationship developed in north america, that bound together competitiveness and made it much
more correct way to together as a block on a global stage against other regions that have production sharing across the region. the united states would have a huge level of supply chain integration was constructed over the years the manufacturing platform and half of the trade today is an input moving apart materials on the other side of the border. we each spend $100 billion that the two fact during the other side of the border. factories and producers and employees depend on the input or the huge disruption that was broken now. if the united states import taxes, border taxes that import
non-canada, indirectly they are doing that to our exporters because $100 billion set in puts in mexico each year. 80% of exports are coming to the united states. many of them come back into the united states. we tax them. doesn't matter which direction. you put a tax on them, you're breaking up the system. it just means this is a negotiation to an existing trade agreement. this is not getting rid of the tpp, which was the future economic policy for someone. this is potentially if we are talking about cutting into the paycheck, cutting into the business model of companies out there through the united states. it's difficult to doubt that that without having significant reaction. that's why despite their rakes in clashes i see coming, i think
we will have to have likely find a way through. >> chris, fred, francisco, thank you for the excellent presentations here. i'd like to pick up on two points chris brought up at the end. one is on the timing of these negotiations. i try to promote the stock at the beginning. hopefully you will get some ideas about how important the timing is. chris also mention his point about integrated production. i like to quote the other day where he taught about the fact that there are in north america we must think that the united states was exiting, that there are jokes. unfortunately scrambled eggs. you can separate them anymore. i think this is a very nice way of thinking about it. try to an separate scrambled eggs if you think about how
difficult it's going to be. that is one thing if we were to make sort of a pitch to the administration, try to impress upon them how difficult it would be to disengage from this production platform. unlike to ask our audience for questions. i know a lot of you have been waiting patiently. we have a good period of time. fred had to take a call. we've got plenty of time. you would like to lead us off? a question back there come a question down here. >> thank you very much. i'm a former broker for the csc in montréal. the agreements for labor and environment seem to have bid over the last 25 years, yet the united states desires are integrated into a new nafta. i would like to ask the panelists what they think will happen at all in a book form. thank you very much.
>> thank you. questions back here in one over there. >> alert upstate, kennedy institute. i know you don't speak on behalf of canadian negotiators, that everyone has been negotiating in the past. what i'm speaking about drawing on fred's point about what else is happening in the register link link between nafta in tpp. the three countries have negotiated the agreement that the u.s. wanted very much. canada and mexico wanted it area well. you are going into the nafta negotiations. u.s. negotiators on a lot of stuff out of that tpp. are you going to give them those positions right at the outset? and also the japanese have said we want to do n-november. how much did you as mexico or canada take to that tivo?
>> the question there in the first round. >> thank you. did you marshal a transnational strategy. thank you for this very interesting discussion. i wanted to see if we could drive up we could draw the pain a lot on an issue they discuss a little bit that is an interesting key to good and that is the impact of north america integration may make in the three countries were competitive with respect to the challenge of china. here where the economics of that that changes all the time depending on many, many fact there's. that's an issue candidate trump himself discussed when he was in mexico during the campaign. wonder why he said that in a one year if some of the advisers and i just wonder if we could maybe analyze that a little bit further. >> thank you very much.
ambassador hill of 30 recognized. garrity one about the former u.s. ambassadors to mexico slinking here. if we could just use our advanced negotiations we would get a lot done. who would like to lead off with responses? >> thank you. the political timing is evidently not the best in an administration that astarte done a lot in terms of what it can do. it delivers in terms of the political movement in terms of opening the economy and key fact there is in one of the most important reforms we have is a great opportunity if we wanted to see in a positive way nafta. why is it a worse political time? right now we are thinking about the elections.
we are thinking about the administration that has very little political .exe back whatever may come. we don't know what that negotiation and they yield. we know that the negotiations starts tomorrow and we know when a negotiations starts. it's very difficult to predict where negotiations will and. back in the 1990s we ended up their handshake and it became a process of approval. negotiating takes a long time, even though we are starting to bring up starting from scratch. but the risk for a mexico is that even now we want to get this process done as quick as possible in nine of the mexican government is working very hard to get this done in the shortest
period of time because we need certainty. we need to get a positive result, even now fred said failure is an option. we don't want to give that alternative away. it is true that we are going to start a process of elections, presidential elections at the end of this year and probably the elections are due in june of next year we have presidential elections. we have no idea who is going to be the next president. we have no idea who's going to be winning the election. so it is very hard to say what is going to have been. but clearly, it may end up being the actual negotiation takes place and it's not finished and it takes place in the middle of an election, which is not only progressive and we have a big if
they are in terms of what may happen, the most recent negotiations and took several months to be worked out. we don't know. it is something that we need to pay attention. as i mentioned in my remarks, i do have to underscore that in mexico there is no politician, no political party, no questions that mexico's membership may be they want to come up with the issues in areas where they do not completely agree with the way was to write it. we don't think mexico's new president, whoever that is will question the fact we need to be there. i think that is true with an environmental issue in the last
25 years. i think that one benchmark to see where the negotiations may take place will look into tpp pacelli deal to francisco because he negotiated for mexico. i do think there are new ways that new disciplines to deal with these issues than they are a valid concern for our economies and their value disciplines that have been in the near most recent negotiations. however, i do think that we need to find ways of establishing at least common denominator. i wonder how the u.s. is going to negotiate the environmental poverty of the u.s. trump administration decided recently to leave the declaration of the which has to deal with it curbing emissions and that
really affects traditions. i don't know how that is going to take place in the agreement. at the end of the day, we need to have disciplines that will actually help the competitiveness of the region. in terms of nafta in tpp, i want to say that i don't think what we negotiated would just be taken from one to another. i mean, this is a negotiation, even though we have heard a track to them, worked on them, tried figuring out a language comic tpp had its own balance at the time with what resulted. we may be in a better situation right now because we know exactly what they are talking about. we have been able to figure out what many of these mean in what we want to to achieve with them? i don't necessarily think the
confessions that mexico's eight at the table will necessarily be identical or will be transferred from tpp to nafta. i really think they'll need to be part of the whole package. in terms of competitiveness, an amazing opportunity towards the energy markets. i really think the liberalization of the energy there in mexico the energy that canada brings to the table and the u.s. brings to the table and the mexican economy opens his structural reform could be the most important boost for the region. what nafta can do is to lock in those reforms. i really can't do it if we really think there's some fact to they could definitely boost
competitiveness in the region, it is maybe having -- [inaudible] >> banks. i want to apologize -- [inaudible] i apologize again. regarding the first question, it's important to bear in mind it's the first time the u.s. -- the agreement in place. i think that even though it is clear in 2016, my guess is why are we talking about it? if we're willing to negotiate
the 21 century acrobat, we should be talking about other provisions, other chapters rather than talking about work over the years. so, regarding if we are going to be able to deliver by early 2018, that each country will follow because we start from scratch and somehow the language that is in place over the last 32 years is going to be quite tired. if you consider some of the language that the u.s. comic tpp and some other trade initiative follows in the following negotiations, it it means they will be able to move up to speed on the crisis. in the case of mexico, of course we will follow our own
precedents. tpp and what is important to remember that this whole initiative in mexico that has over the years. so that is something that is important for mexico to keep in mind. if we are able to get some languages from the precedents in canada as the administrator said, i think we would be able to have the effort where you may have a different point of view. but it depends on the strategies. as far as i know, there is an informal information that the u.s. will follow different
chapters, but at least tomorrow we will have a better understanding about if nafta negotiations will or not. as fred said that, it is possible it is an option. if it's an option, it will be for the u.s. because for mexico -- [inaudible] so of course it will depend on the outcome. so talking about side agreements in provisions, it will be between the negotiations to have an agreement of both disciplines.
i think it has changed and evolved where they were negotiated. but even though we are able to deliver and generate, we don't have any certainty the administration in mexico is considered to renegotiate the agreement that they may reach because it's important to remember in the u.s. and mexico and colombia to renegotiate with an agreement was which also in mexico will hound elections from july the second that even though not even the left has challenged the benefits of nafta, we also need to consider that we will have an administration any here
applies. just to conclude, regarding the tpp confessions, as maria expressed a very clear, the confessions that were made by tpp negotiation was the outcome of the present negotiation with mexico. over five years. so it's a good reference, but it is something that the mexican government is willing to put on the table. i think that the main difference between tpp, we have 53 in the second row of origin is completely different reality and
the pacific green in latin america. one question that i have for fred is how it is possible to manage the agreement that may not follow were complied even though i understand that it's the 2015 follows somehow the previous precedence over the years, i believe it would be reasonable to think that the tpp and nafta to pursue a higher level. 2015 will be in place in july 28 team. submitting the request and there
is no motion against. so if they continue with the u.s., what will happen if there is some issue that might be of interest or agreement may not comply directly bipartisan. >> well, on that last point, which is a very good one commend the administration in various directions as they think been very careful to avoid at least it. to violate the object dates that were laid out in tpa 2015. now it's a matter of judgment as
to whether what they are proposing actually carries out the subject is. they have tried to avoid any implication that they are violating congressional mandates. they've obviously gone beyond them in some cases. they try to reduce the u.s. trade deficit through your trade agreement. congress did not say that. and so, if they blew up over that mistaken premise, then i think they would have big trouble with the congress. remember, whenever they negotiate in the talks now coming up, they had to take two to congress. always in the u.s. system, the president proposes, congress disposes. the trade agreement, more than
other areas, the negotiators have to always, always look over their shoulder what would congress approved, et cetera, it better. it's a fascinating episode four months ago president trump said i'm going to withdraw from nafta to a lot of that pushback came from the congress. senator cornyn from texas, the number two ranking republican think nafta is us, unquote. as somebody said on the panel, part of the economic life, not to mention other parts of the country. and so, if you didn't jeopardize the agreement, you would be doing so at your peril with the congress. and then when they get into the specific discussions for ratification to deal with successfully, they would demonstrate point by point where they did for congress.
the currency issue is a somehow controversial one, which is in large part because the congress had to tpa 15 you show would not permit trade partners to underline the level playing field for currency manipulation. that is why you came in late today and negotiated a side agreement, et cetera, it better. ..
the economy's, strengthening supply chains, et cetera. the companies wouldn't do it. it wouldn't strengthen their competitiveness and that ipso facto improve the competitive position of the north american economy. but that would require a totally different mindset from the u.s. administration. the mindset of the u.s. administration is that canada and mexico are adversaries. that it's a zero-sum game, defined by trade deficits, that if i rather trade deficit with you that means the trade is unfair. that is the way they have defined the issue. i'm talking about the very top level, the president, but some around them as well. if you define the issue as a negotiating with adversaries, you are in an opposite mindset from what you suggested, and i would certainly endorse ought to
be the mindset of an update of nafta 25 years, namely improving the joint competitiveness of the region. so it's a fundamental mindset question, not some maneuvering around the margins. it's pretty basic, and what you untie, let's you and i keep working on that to change it. >> nobody said anything about the environment. i'm not an expert in that exact topic but i would say think there's a willingness on the parties to engage in the conversation and to look at bringing the environmental part of the agreement into the actual body of the text. that's something we should look forward to, the conversation there. we should look to ttp for president, other agreements for president. exactly how you could do that and what it would look like, how you would subject pieces of that to dispute resolution. resolution itself will be a part of the renegotiation and supposed to think you have to look at together because they
will both be being negotiated side-by-side. the one thing i would say is we've heard this explicitly from the canadian side is the would be a challenge in terms of bringing climate into the environmental agreement. the white by some of, i think it was the foreign minister but by the top canadian officials that would be difficult to imagine an environmental chapter this day and age that doesn't reference climate, and that in tpa there is a rejection of that notion. this is someplace where we will see some potential conflict. it's just one example of many how these things become very quickly much more collocated than you think it might be at the outset. that's one space of it. in general we fit up on it but there's a very strong tension between speed in the negotiations and this time issue and the tpp importation of language issue.
it's the only way to move very quickly is to really is tpp as system template. if you look at the objectives from the u.s. and mexico for that matter you will see most of the topics really reference are topics that are dealt with in the transpacific partnership negotiation. there's a lot to work with if you're willing to do it but you have to look at who's under the pressure in terms of timing and i would say mexico's probably on the top of that list. united states is second on that list. we have midterm elections next year and candidate probably third on that list. there will be games played in terms of negotiations and willingness to stretch them out to be essentially those who want to finish quicker, if they really want to do that. will have to be willing to give up a bit more faster and order to get there. i'm not sure anyone is willing to do that. that's where i think that's what i think the most likely outcome is that timing thing falls apart
very quickly, that is very quickly realize what all the negotiators, that it's not going to be concluded by late this year or early next year in which case then there's no advantage to quickly a seating to tpp concessions that you already made and instead your strategy should be to start from your tpp starting point in the negotiations which would mean you are renegotiating each of those topics along with. that's much more likely outcome. and all of this leads to back to this question of interacting with u.s. congress because it's very likely, even after negotiation takes place there are statutory time periods that need to be sort of waiting periods before congress and the trait would take action on trade agreement. it's very unlikely the united states, congress would vote on an updated nafta intel after the midterm election next year. we need to think pretty seriously about whether or not the u.s. congress will pass whatever is negotiated. nafta is an incredibly controversial topic, and as we
go through a midterm election process to become an incredibly partisan process again as well. i don't know the answer we don't know what the equipment will look like. it's very hard to predict but we have to think very seriously the possibility that just like some of these other big issues that u.s. congress has tried to tackle like healthcare in recent months that this is something that it could be a lot of work put into, and it could just go kaput when it hits the u.s. congress. i think we should take it seriously. >> chris of been a real downer today i have to say. [laughing] but you know, it's the weather i'm sure. >> not just to be clear, just to be clear, if it goes to food as you say, the current nafta stays in place -- kaput as you say. >> but your premise is that he succeeds in negotiations, since it to congress for ratification and colleagues will not do that. you may be right but in the case
i believe the current nafta stays in place until and unless something happens to change it. so everybody is clear, kaput does not mean the end of nafta. >> i'm seeing a number hands go up. one, two, three. i know you've had your head up for a while so we can begin over there, thank you. >> mike, pbs online news out. can we dig deeper into mexican politics? at the moment they candidate leading in the polls also is a populist nationalist turkey happens be from the left rather than from the right. he opposes and says he's going to undo all the recent reforms that you all have talked about that were made possible you said by nafta. and to be blunt he's a bit of an opportunist. if he sees an opportunity to use nafta for his benefit, isn't that likely? and then also even if the way
and is he going to have a congress that's going to be with him? your congress has to approve this deal the same as the american congress. >> thank you. past the microphone to guy. >> thank you. i want to pick up on this last exchange between fred and chris. and ask come to think about 2019 and other negotiations that are underway to nobody mentioned brexit. the uk will lose free trade with mexico and canada when they leave the community. both those countries are free trade which extends to the uk at the moment and it is getting improved, but both cases. what does the uk do? the uk has expressed a willingness -- why? does it make more sense to think beyond the nafta and get the uk into a north atlantic fair and free trade area if you want to call it that?
start thinking about that now because if these delays take place, which i agree are sorely possible, maybe even likely, will end up at the end of 2018 with the current nafta in place one hopes and an opportunity to galvanize the whole thing by bringing in the uk, with a very generous transition. >> guy, when nafta made north atlantic free trade agreement, that was a proposal back in the '70s and '80s. >> the term got co-opted by the hemisphere. >> i'm a lease from the wilson center. you also talked a lot about making nafta or modernizing it for the 21st century and also watching other agreements, trade trade agreements around the world. my question is about gender and international trade and incorporating it in trade agreements. the canadian government just came out today or yesterday saying she wanted to incorporate
gender into free-trade agreements like they did with candidate and chilly when it renegotiated a couple months ago and how she wants to create a general provision in nafta. i guess my question is what's your opinion on integrating gender into nafta or free-trade agreements, and whether or not you think it's on the radar of mexico and the u.s. >> was just very quickly it is also in the mexican statement of objectives. the recognition of the agenda to make it so it's interesting question. do you want to ask a question as well? >> basically, the question is on labor and the role it's going to play in the success, particularly if you're counting votes at the end of the process. vote number one being the president and vote number two being the congress and they don't always mesh. the unions alleys in the united states may play a much bigger role. how do you see negotiating through that particular thing if you have an eye on passing it at the end of the line?
>> thank you very much. fred, would you like to kick off this round? >> well, on the last question, i think the reason that you need to have a pretty horse a labor provision in the renegotiated nafta is exactly what you said, make the whole agreement passable in the congress at the end of the day. i don't know how much those provisions were actually accomplish for the goals of the labor movement or american workers, but their strong insistence that a think from both sides of the aisle in the congress to put that in. i don't think this administration is particularly devoted to the topic themselves, but if they're going to get it through the congress to have to have entered so i think you're right to fly combat and i think the negotiating partners probably understand that as well. >> francisco.
>> thank you. regarding the first question, i guess the political agenda, some whole influence in the process, i'm not certain that if really mexico is in hurry. i think that the mexican administration has a strong interest to conclude nafta 2.0 during this administration but doesn't seem to be like a must. if the conditions or the request from the other two parties are not ones that can be met in terms of the mexican administration, maybe they want push hard enough to try to get the deal. remember this negotiation, many other issues that mexico is willing to push forward. also see what about the responses in canada in
particular the u.s. regarding u.s. i think it's something great idea, a year ago or even early 2016 when i used to be still a -- [inaudible] this was an idea that was mentioned by the secretary. the plan that we have is first, england cannot negotiate the launch box until brexit happen so we're talking about two years. having said that, there's already informal talks in the case of mexico and england and anderson that is a visit with some other trading partners. and it will be a great approach or trading to have nafta and england. but maybe not america is somehow
-- north america is somehow too heavy in order to move us as block to negotiate something. mexico wanted to join the ttip if we were the sole one that had in place with europe since 2001. so it's a good idea and i think and ambition that we should look for over the years, but maybe it's going to take longer than we would like to. regarding gender free-trade agreements, i think it's something that we should and must include, and it's one of the issues that as i said should include 21 century trade initiatives. regarding labor provisions, well, it's important to remember mexico is no longer the country that had labor framework 25 years old.
so my guess is the outcome that we got during ttip negotiation was positive one. we don't know what other provisions the u.s. may want to submit to candidate and to mexico, and so we will take a look. at the end it's about reaching balance not only about the u.s. congress, also it's about the mexican and the canadian parliament. and in the case of mexico, if we are able to reach an agreement, i think their space to approve it. and if not we will see what the new administration and new president of mexico may say about that. >> i will take the opposite question. he clearly is a fun read because he's been camping for the last
18 years, and he's the only official candidate that we have today. the other political parties did not have official candidates yet. i think that something we need to consider. it's really a tossup. we have no idea who may be the next president and what may be the result of the next election. i could not, i would not discard right now that i will not discard anybody. it's really going to be a very highly competitive election next year. now, any president that calmness in office in december of 2018 will have an extremely, extremely, extremely difficult to reverse reforms. why? because they need congressional reform. congressional reform requires two-thirds approval of congress, of senate, and then it requires the approval of each one of the local 32 local congresses in mexico. i'm not saying it's impossible
but it's not an easy task to reverse reform. so i say that, i would say that in the near future those reforms are there to stay, even though they have costs and even though they are not quite special education i would say. but it think we often need to give time for those reforms to yield results. it's that something, those reforms will take between two and three generations to really yield the results that we need to see. so i'm not even that pessimistic in terms of whoever ends up being elected president, that would be tampering with nafta. we in mexico had now let's say globalization crisis in the 1980s when we decided to shift the model from import/export and
we became gapped memories and the renegotiated nafta. i think that the 1980s was really, the defining moment for mexico and since then we may have tampered a little bit with some of our tariffs. i mean, we have also played with some protectionist measures on very specific sectors and doing things that we shouldn't be doing, but nobody says anything, so unless somebody comes and start a case, then we come back to our good behavior. in general our policy is a trade liberalization policy, and open policy. we know that we depend on international trade, international capital and visited so we're not going to be playing with that and nobody in its political platform will do that, even if they said something that would question mexico's role in trade.
that will not, i don't see any policy that will reverse that. brexit i agree. the uk could join the nafta. that's something that has been discussed earlier but we would have to have a shared vision. we would have to be a north american region to be able to negotiate with a third-party. in terms of gender, i think the gender provision which as duncan said is also part of the mexico's objectives for the nafta. it adds up to the least of issues that have to do with how to build an inclusive trade agenda. a trade agenda that really responds to the vast majority of people. we know that in trade as in any public policy, there are losers and winners. so we need to find ways to offer that kind of support or adjustment to those that may not be taking advantage of globalization, and would also need to find ways to bring
opportunities to open opportunities to those who have not been able to take part in globalization. i think it's more of raising the bar and finding disciplines and funny programs and finding direct policy interventions. that may help to include more firms have a more, a better playing field for men and women in international trade for rural communities or for those who have lost their jobs as a result of technology. so i think that it's part of the vision of an inclusive trade agenda, which i think is legitimate, but having an inclusive trade agenda does not mean or that is not, should not be interpreted or does not translate into a protectionist agenda. i think both are compatible. it's just a matter of putting them at the table and finding ways of really creating these
solidarity is among north america countries and communities. in the past i had the opportunity of working with ambassador in mexico on issues between mexico and the u.s. on gender. the secretary of the time and secretary clinton signed and m.o.u. on how to improve conditions for women-owned businesses and women in north america. so i think that there are already cases in which we have tried to bring in. because we think that it's the best way to really create that trade, to promote the economic growth that we all need and to bring diversity to the table. i think that this is also something that was touched on on tpp. there are several examples recently that have taken place, and how do we create this new discipline, how do we create this direct intervention?
how do we have a more cohesive society in north america? so i think that this may be a good way of addressing those issues and bring legitimacy and credibility to the nafta into north american integration. and with respect to labor, i think that, i mean, labor may be a very difficult issue at the table. if we want to take labor as, as was posted a few weeks and months ago by some of the trump administration officials in the sense that apparently mexico is like the bad guy in the arena because we have lower labor costs. wages in mexico are lower than in the u.s. that's a fact. the fact that that exist does mean we haven't unfair trade advantage. obviously, that's not the idea.
we in mexico have to work very hard to close that gap but that requires many, many other things in addition to labor opportunities in the labor market. that requires education, innovation, improvements in productivity in order to be able to raise wages. so my concern with respect to labor is that the u.s. comes up with a proposal that really tries to intervene in minimum wages and labor markets which cannot be solved through a trade negotiation. that may end up creating a very, very difficult way of finding a solution to the nafta negotiation. so i know that labor is a very important question, but we have to be very careful on not offering solutions that may actually end up getting us nowhere. >> could i at one point?
i think the notion of adding the united kingdom to nafta is a terrible idea. [laughing] the reason is, brexit is a terrible idea. it's terrible for the uk. it's terrible for europe and it's bad for the united states. and i'm in a minority admittedly but i think it's going to be reversed because i think when they really realize what they're getting themselves into, they will reverse course. and i think it would be a huge error to feed the brexit tier mentality by holding out this hope of a free-trade agreement with the united states, a free-trade agreement with the nafta, all these goodies out of this on wonderful conceptually intel you start trying to do it. we talk about the congressional difficulties of nafta itself, and renegotiating and adding these provisions. now you going to add another bigger, this biggest economy in the world with all source of problems that don't appear on
the service of the special relationship at all. it would be hell to pay. if you're going to add the uk why not the pacific alliance? if we're going to open up nafta and will add other countries, well fine but there a lot of other countries out there that might even be ahead of the uk in the queue. so let's talk about them, too. then what are you in? so any chance of using it, using nafta to further integrate north america i think would go further, become even more impossible. but it would become an unimaginable task in terms of negotiation. let's keep that one on the shelf until and unless the evil day comes. >> let's not reward bad behavior. >> exactly. >> a couple things to add and so much has been said. in terms of mexico political process. the one point i want to add on top of it is that tone in the u.s.-mexico relationship matters quite a bit. that is to say that we can have
highly adversarial tones, if there's an environment of conflict that's going on. you better believe that should he become president reagan during the campaign will use that. he's already proven, what happened in terms of his polling numbers quite obvious election shows he is a candidate best positioned to take advantage of an environment of conflict between the two countries, wrapped himself in a black and take up the nationals banner. if he is, if the environment is such that is appetizing, he will be the one to do that. and if he wins the election and that's imbibed in which we're heading into a new presidency, well then i think some of these, we should be concerned about the future of the u.s.-mexico relationship because we went up to people on side that are willing to take advantage of the opportunities in terms of domestic politics at the expense of the relationship between the two countries. sotelo matters quite a bit and where we are at. because if on the other hand, if
we have a cooperative relationship, a functioning nafta renegotiation, even if they're still underway but something that is moving towards a reasonable out,, the incentives are much lower to engage in that type of positioning and that type of rhetoric. liberty comes next president of mexico will be responsible mexican economy over the next six years. you need nafta if you don't want to have a big problem in terms of mexican economy. during that risk is a big risk in real-time for any candidate but that may be in situations there may be an environment that promotes that anyway. and then quickly on the north america uk, it just reminds me of a couple of years ago having a conversation as the u.s. is beginning to crochet should the ttip your. there was an initiative, a push, some interest in having canada and mexico joint. candidate was already in the process of negotiations with the eu, and mexico stated its
interest in actually making it a comprehensive regional approach. it was too hard, it was just too tough to conceive of taking that on from the u.s. perspective in particular at that moment. i just think we're in a much more complex moment and so i think the willingness to find an appetite to take on that additional level of complexity when i think honestly what we are trying to do is do no harm. we are trying to the boat afloat. there are people are trying to do more than that right now in this moment but that is the primary objective of most interests right now, and adding complexity, it's just hard, that's all. >> i'd like to recognize to questioners which came in from twitter and we don't have time to answer but someone named -- he asked about what would happen to nafta visa if nafta failed? i assumed it would be ended come with a? anyway, kelly anderson wrote in nafta provides opportunity to bolster north american opportunities for innovation.
[inaudible conversations] >> a number of state voting today in primary election including alabama. voters are hitting the polls for a special election to choose republican and democratic nominees for the use senate seat. this he was left vacant after president trump appointed jeff sessions to be u.s. attorney general. republican sender luther strange was alabama's attorney general and was appointed to replace mr. sessions is running to remain in office to send a strange has been endorsed by president trump. among his gop primary opponents, alabama represented mo brooks and former alabama chief justice roy moore. on the democratic side in alabama, former u.s. attorney
doug jones is facing off against businessman robert kennedy. mr. kennedy is not a member of the famous kennedy family. >> tonight tv in primetime looks at medicine and healthcare. meredith wadman talks about how scientists develop a vaccine for rubella and other childhood illnesses in the 1960s. >> this week at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, tonight the future of the internet.
>> were talking about how certain platforms seem to black people with information that reaffirms what they already think. but it's not like facebook said hey, you're a conservative, i think you're a conservative, i'm going to show a conservative content. they said i'm going to show you things from the people you know anna going to show you content from the pages you like and what distro clicking all those things i'm going to figure out whose content you seem to like and keep showing you more of that. if facebook it not been that we would not be having this conversation because they would not have grown to the skill to which they grew today. >> wednesday a forum on the changing role of cities. >> this is a transition time and i think cities will play a major role of fighting against this popular sizes cities and the way cities can change representative
democracies, a great machine to change what's going on. >> thursday an in-depth look at the opioid epidemic including ohio attorney general who was suing several drug companies for their marketing of opioid painkillers. >> what's different about this drug problem that we have is how pervasive it is. it is absolutely everywhere. it is in our smallest communities, in our cities. it's in our most affluent suburbs. >> and friday a conversation with supreme court justice elena kagan. >> you sit at the very beginning of our conversation we are not a pure democracy, where a constitutional democracy. and that means that the judiciary has an important role to play in policing the boundaries of all the other branches and that can make the judiciary and unpopular set of people when they say to a governor or a president or congress no, you can't do that
because it's just not within your constitutional powers. >> watch this week at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. c-span.org. listen using the free c-span radio app. >> now to a recent conference at princeton university called a worthy life, finding meaning in america. this next panel focuses on bioethics and the potential for technology to advance the physical and mental capabilities of human beings. it's about an hour and 45 minutes. >> we turn from the prescientific to the scientific from human experience of the human to the scientific accounts of man, it it's implications and what we imagine to be it's impli implications. in bse