|
NAFTA Talks Were Already Going Poorly. Then Trump Endorsed 'Trade Wars.' |
|
|
Sunday, 04 March 2018 09:42 |
|
Crunden writes: "President Trump dealt another blow to key trade renegotiation talks this week after first announcing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports before following those threats with a series of tweets praising 'trade wars' and calling for 'reciprocal taxes' as a means of combating U.S. trade deficits."
Donald Trump. (photo: AP)

NAFTA Talks Were Already Going Poorly. Then Trump Endorsed 'Trade Wars.'
By EA Crunden, ThinkProgress
04 March 18
New tweets come a day after both Canada and Mexico slammed the president's tariff announcement.
resident Trump dealt another blow to key trade renegotiation talks this week after first announcing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports before following those threats with a series of tweets praising “trade wars” and calling for “reciprocal taxes” as a means of combating U.S. trade deficits.
On Friday morning, Trump penned several tweets lashing out at other countries and lamenting the state of U.S. trade and related taxation.
“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win,” Trump wrote. “Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!”
That tweet was followed by another, emphasizing the importance of steel, and then a third tweet centered on trade.
“When a country Taxes our products coming in at, say, 50%, and we Tax the same product coming into our country at ZERO, not fair or smart. We will soon be starting RECIPROCAL TAXES so that we will charge the same thing as they charge us. $800 Billion Trade Deficit-have no choice!” Trump tweeted.
It is unclear from Trump’s tweets whether the president is calling for reciprocal taxes or reciprocal tariffs — one would mean the duty placed on U.S. goods by other countries would merit a tit-for-tat percentage. The other would seemingly mean a tit-for-tat sales tax scenario. The threats follow a much-teased announcement on Thursday, when Trump declared his intentions to slap tariffs of 25 percent and 10 percent on steel imports and aluminum, respectively.
Trump failed to go into specifics — or indicate which countries might be exempt from the plan — but the announcement only served to exacerbate tensions as North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) talks move into their seventh round. There’s a major reason for that: The United States imports the majority of its steel from Canada; Mexico serves as the fourth-biggest provider.

Canadian officials quickly made it clear that Trump’s tariff announcement could blow up NAFTA.
“It is entirely inappropriate to view any trade with Canada as a national security threat to the United States,” said Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s leading NAFTA negotiator, in a statement addressing Trump’s threats released on Thursday. “Should restrictions be imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum products, Canada will take responsive measures to defend its trade interests and workers.”
Freeland’s comments marked Canada’s most aggressive response to U.S. trade threats yet and led multiple industry groups to speculate a trade war might ensue. That discussion seems in turn to have sparked Trump’s Friday tweets embracing the idea as “good” for the United States. While steel and aluminum trade only relies in part on NAFTA, even groups supporting Trump’s tariff push — like the United Steelworkers union — feel Canada should be exempt.
“These tariffs are yet another example of the highly protectionist America First agenda playing out in real time,” Adam Taylor, a former Canadian trade official now with Export Action Global, told Bloomberg. “That they come right in the middle of NAFTA negotiations is worrisome as Mexico and Canada see modernizing as enhancing and upgrading NAFTA while the U.S. views the NAFTA 2.0 talks as a way to erect new barriers.”
The heated back-and-forth is in keeping with the broader tenor of the negotiations so far. NAFTA talks have been going poorly since they began, thanks in large part to strident U.S. demands and a seeming unwillingness to compromise with the needs of Canada and Mexico. Trump has labeled NAFTA the “worst trade deal ever made” and threatened repeatedly to tear up the agreement if renegotiation efforts are unsuccessful.
That hasn’t gone over very well with the other parties involved — while talks were initially set to end this month, they may now stretch into next year. The ongoing seventh round of talks, meanwhile, wasn’t going well even prior to Trump’s announcement on Thursday and additional comments on Friday.
Now, they’re set to worsen, alarming Mexico as much as Canada. During an event at the National Immigration Forum on Thursday night in Washington, D.C., Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, Gerónimo Gutiérrez, emphasized NAFTA’s importance for U.S.-Mexico relations.
“We did NAFTA 25 years ago because we wanted to trade more among ourselves. Our trade has multiplied six-fold…Mexico is now the United States’ second destination for exports,” Gutiérrez said.
“Over 30 states in the United States [have] Mexico as their first or second trading partner. [Numbers point] to the fact that around 5 million jobs depend directly on trade with Mexico. Mexico’s investment in the United States is $52 billion,” he continued. “That investment is creating jobs in Ohio, Texas, California, and many other places. NAFTA is not so much anymore about how we trade among ourselves, which is important, but how we produce better together to export to other regions in the world, to supply chains that have been formed over the last 25 years.”
Gutiérrez’s comments point to a larger issue: U.S. threats aren’t going over well in Mexico. Data from Mexico’s Agrifood and Fishery Information Service (SIAP) already indicates the country is shifting away from the United States as a trading partner and towards countries like Brazil. That’s costing U.S. farmers, many of whom have already begun to express concern about the implications of any failure to renegotiate NAFTA.
Tensions with Canada and Mexico over imports have baffled experts — largely because they are viewed as unnecessary. Many economists argue that U.S. deficits, long a source of ire for Trump, are not actually a bad thing. That hasn’t stopped the White House from honing in on the issue, something made clear by Trump’s tweets. On Thursday, the president also argued the tariffs were important for U.S. national security. But that’s a dubious claim, per the New York Times’ Neil Irwin, as is the suggestion that trade wars have a positive impact on the economy.
If anything, the tariffs are likely to ultimately impact U.S. consumers and companies. A full-out trade war, meanwhile, would almost certainly harm U.S. relations with other countries — not least of all Canada and Mexico. Even within the White House those efforts are unpopular with several key strategists: Trump’s chief economic policy advisor, Gary Cohn, was reportedly eyeing a White House exit but stayed to lobby against the tariff proposal, a battle he appears to have lost.
Current NAFTA talks are set to end March 5 in order to allow for the Mexican presidential campaign to proceed on March 30. Unless the White House reverses course, the new U.S. tariffs are set to go into effect next week.

|
|
It Was a Trade War That Helped Cause the Great Depression |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 03 March 2018 14:48 |
|
Reich writes: "Trump this morning: 'When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don't trade anymore - we win big. It's easy!'"
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)

It Was a Trade War That Helped Cause the Great Depression
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
03 March 18
rump this morning: “When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!”
People, this is totally bonkers. Trade wars are lose-lose propositions. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 (see below) resulted in a trade war that helped plunge the world into the Great Depression.
And Trump’s “easy to win” remedy of ending trade with countries that run trade deficits with us can’t possibly result in a big win for us, because American consumers would end up paying far more.
Someone should also remind Trump that trade deficits aren’t necessarily bad even if foreigners end up holding lots of dollars, since we’re the ones who create dollars in the first place.
China raises a special set of problems, but those problems won’t be rectified by starting a trade war with a nation on which so much of our exports, especially agricultural products, depend.
Your thoughts?

|
|
|
FOCUS: Dreamers Must Be Protected - as Indigenous Peoples Were Not |
|
|
Saturday, 03 March 2018 12:23 |
|
Lyons writes: "As we approach the 5 March date for expiration of the legal immigration status of so-called Dreamers - those who came to the US as children and now fall under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status, or Daca - we as citizens of the original Indigenous Nations of this continent have been watching closely."
Activists rallying to defend DACA in Washington, D.C. (photo: Andrew Stefan/RSN)

Dreamers Must Be Protected - as Indigenous Peoples Were Not
By Betty Lyons, Guardian UK
03 March 18
For those who know the Americas as the Great Turtle Island or Abya Yala, Daca is not an immigration crisis – it is a matter of simple human rights
s we approach the 5 March date for expiration of the legal immigration status of so-called Dreamers – those who came to the US as children and now fall under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status, or Daca – we as citizens of the original Indigenous Nations of this continent have been watching closely.
We have dealt with these issues ever since the first Europeans crossed the Atlantic and “discovered” lands you call the Americas, known to us for millennia as the Great Turtle Island or Abya Yala. Since the United States was founded on our lands in 1776, these policies and practices have had a devastating impact on the territories and rights of the Original Nations and our relatives from both north and the south of US borders.
For us, Daca is not an immigration crisis. It is a human rights crisis. And human rights cannot be deferred. Every day approximately 122 people lose Daca protection. This cruel policy immorally punishes and traumatizes innocent young people and their families.
As Indigenous Peoples, we know our history and we know our relatives. Many so-called “undocumented” people are in fact Indigenous Peoples, children of Original Nations with a millennial history of travel across the continent to trade and engage in ceremonial obligations at sacred sites of their traditional territories before the US existed.
The US-Mexico border is not an indigenous border. Similarly, to citizens of the Onondaga Nation – part of the Six Nation Haudenosaunee Confederacy, what you call the Iroquois – the US-Canadian border runs through traditional lands that we view as one inseparable nation.
Dividing families is something we cannot imagine doing to others, because we have been through this pain many times at the hands of the same government. That is why we as Indigenous Peoples support immediate passage of a “clean” Dream Act, and it should definitely not be linked to funding a wall along the US-Mexico border that Indigenous Nations never consented to in the first place. A wall will exacerbate human rights violations and bring horrendous environmental destruction to the land.
When European colonists arrived and were hungry, we fed them. When they were cold we clothed them and when they needed a place to stay we offered hospitality on our lands. And when they moved toward independence in confederation as a country, we instructed them in our Great Law of Peace.
If we are to truly discuss US immigration, we should start in 1493 with the “Doctrine of Discovery”, a series of papal bulls declaring lands not occupied by Christians could be claimed in the name of the explorers’ European sovereigns. Far from ancient history, the doctrine to this day underlies the law and policy related to Indigenous land rights and human rights in US courts and across the world. The lingering racism underpinned by the doctrine is the real “constitutional crisis” unfolding before us daily, a symptom of the underlying crisis of self-definition of the US body politic that lies at the root of the tree of the American “experiment” in democracy.
While the US constitution says that treaties – such as the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua with the Haudenosaunee, signed by George Washington for the United States – are the supreme law of the land, the United States failed to enforce the promised recognition and protection of our lands from illegal invasion by settlers. As we have sought justice in the US courts for this illegal theft of our land, the courts refused to hear the case, citing the Doctrine of Discovery and claiming “it would be too disruptive” to the “justified expectations” of non-native people now living on our lands.
To be clear, the Onondaga Nation explicitly stated we do not want to “deport” people from our lands, the way we have been displaced historically. Yet while the US claimed it feared disrupting our non-native neighbors, they would hypocritically deport young Dreamers who have grown up in the US, with no regard for disrupting their lives and families.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) proclaims: “Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with their own members as well as other peoples across borders.”
In the spirit of responsibility for caretaking the land for future generations, we call upon leadership from all sectors of society to live up to the ideals of democracy and decency, of human rights and justice and act immediately to protect Dreamers and their families, and to recognize, respect and guarantee basic dignity and inherent human rights of all peoples, including Indigenous Peoples’ equal right of self-determination.
No one is illegal. Human rights cannot be deferred.

|
|
FOCUS: How I Found My Voice as a Pacifist |
|
|
Saturday, 03 March 2018 11:52 |
|
Baez writes: "When I was 9, my father faced a moral dilemma. After getting his Ph.D. in physics, he took a job at Cornell University on a project to improve the bulletproof windows of fighter jets. But in the late 1940s, he wasn’t comfortable working for the defense industry, given the horrors of the atomic bomb."
Joan Baez. (photo: Jim Gilbert)

How I Found My Voice as a Pacifist
By Joan Baez, The Wall Street Journal
03 March 18
Joan Baez, 77, is a folk singer and guitarist who received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2007. Her latest album is “Whistle Down the Wind” (Razor & Tie). She spoke with Marc Myers.
hen I was 9, my father faced a moral dilemma. After getting his Ph.D. in physics, he took a job at Cornell University on a project to improve the bulletproof windows of fighter jets. But in the late 1940s, he wasn’t comfortable working for the defense industry, given the horrors of the atomic bomb.
My father, Albert, was struggling with his conscience and needed spiritual guidance.
We became Quakers. My parents decided rather than get rich in the defense industry, my father would become a professor. By then, we were pacifists.
I was born in New York and was two when we moved from Brooklyn to California so my father could study for his Ph.D. at Stanford. Our house was tiny and beautiful. It was white, with a pointed roof and an arched entrance.
When my Aunt Tia left her husband, she moved to Stanford with her two children. My parents and Tia bought a large house on Glenwood Avenue. It was Victorian and looked haunted.
I shared a bedroom with my older sister, Pauline, who wasn’t happy to have me. She was neat and tidy and precise. I was less so.
To help pay the rent, my parents and Tia took in boarders, up to five at a time. My mother cooked Sunday dinner, and everyone ate at the same table. I was exposed to people with different backgrounds.
After my father’s crisis of conscience at Cornell, we moved back to California, where he became a professor of physics at the University of Redlands.
That was in 1950. Around this time, I began experiencing bouts of melancholy. My mother, Joan, always said I looked as if I carried the world on my shoulders.
Our home in Redlands was a lower middle-class house, but there was something sweet about it. It was white, with a lawn in front that my mother lined with roses. We had a porch where I loved to sit and watch the world go by. By then, I shared a room with my younger sister, Mimi.
While in Redlands, my father took a year’s leave to work with Unesco at the University of Baghdad in Iraq. He took us with him. The poverty and desperation for food were shocking.
Back in school in Redlands, I suddenly was Mexican. My father had come to the States from Mexico with his family in 1915. In 1936, he married my mother, who was born in Scotland. Because my name was Baez and I looked Mexican, I was placed in classes for underperforming kids.
When I was 13, one of our assignments was to write our life history in a page. In my notebook, I wrote, “If there’s an underdog, I’m always for the underdog.”
In junior high school, I sang in the choir. But I had a problem. My voice was as straight as an arrow. I needed a vibrato for warmth. One day, in the bathroom, I wiggled the flesh around my Adam’s apple. As I sang, a vibrato emerged. That exercise taught me what my voice had to do.
In 1958, we moved to the Boston area when my father took a position at MIT. When I attended Boston University in the fall, I started singing for money. The guitar was never out of my hands. I sang around town and developed a following.
One day in early 1959, I was performing at a coffee shop in Cambridge when manager Albert Grossman saw me. He had me appear in Chicago, where I met folk singer Bob Gibson, who invited me to the first Newport Folk Festival that summer. We sang two songs together. My career took off.
Today, I live in Woodside, Calif., in a house built in the 1930s. I was captivated by the land and the oak trees. I’ve since renovated to put in larger windows to let in more light. They also let me see the forest and greenery from every room.
My favorite space is the living room, by the fireplace. It’s warm and serene, and covered in adobe tiles made by an artist friend of mine when he was in his 90s. I practice there when I’m not on tour.
Perhaps my most beloved possession is a framed note on the wall that my father wrote to me in his 90s. He didn’t communicate well with his kids. In the note, he wrote, “Dearest Joanie, I love it when you visit me. From your Papa, with love.” It pleases me that he finally wrote me something nice.

|
|