tv Washington Journal Lauren Dawson Duncan Wood CSPAN September 19, 2018 12:04pm-12:35pm EDT
canada at odds. what are the crunch time deadlines we are working under this week? >> the good news, a real crunch time, we have been talking about crunch time for most of your and nowhere near crunch time until probably this week. it seems they finally have most of the issues out on the table. they have a landing strip for settlement. they know approximately where each side wants to go and it is a matter of getting the political masters to sign off on that. was there for several weeks during the summer and got a lot accomplished. i would not be surprised if they bring mexico back gus ultimately be message for congress is, this has to be a trilateral deal. the canadians are not held to the same kind of political imperatives the americans are held to. they can potentially put together, i think they want to get this off the table. >> who is in town today and who are you watching for news? >> crystal freeland, the
minister in charge of trade is in town and has been in town a lot. the mexican administrators have been in town a lot and that is because the political drama. this is the real one. the real-time when ministers have to come to town and signoff on the big decisions their negotiators do not have the authority to make on their own. >> president trump reached a bilateral deal with mexico at the end of last month and -- does mexico want to move forward with the bilateral deal without canada? >> the mexican foreign minister said it very well, at a press conference after the deal was signed, he said we would like this to be a trilateral deal. we want canada to come in. he used a mexican phrase, however. we do not control the decision-making process of
canada and if they cannot come to a deal with the united states , we will go ahead with the bilateral deal. since then, interesting to listen to mexican volumes to makers -- policymakers saying it guarantees them access to the u.s. market, it guarantees certainty to investors in mexico. one of the things they are desperate to relay. on, thereelse going are certain deadlines in mexico that come to play. the current president leaves office at the end of november and the new president comes in on december 1. the mexicans would like to have deal by the mexican deal by tht before he leaves office because the new president coming in, he expressed support for nafta but recognizes it is vitally important for mexico, there are certain political and paradigms that he may want to -- imperatives he wants to make a show and say i want this to be my deal. theyiminate uncertainty
want to get it done before the end of november. about trade talking dollars, who needs a trilateral deal the most? who would be the biggest winner on his or if this does not happen? >> i would say the private sector in all three countries. in terms of countries, there is no doubt this is an exit central question form exit -- existential question for mexico but for the canadians and americans as well. if we just focus on trade figures, if the lies reality of the north american economy today , this is a deeply integrated economy and you cannot separate them out. we have spoken about this a number of times. that is why a bilateral deal does not make sense. between mexico and the united states deal extruding candidate mean to ignore the reality of integrated production systems across the region. >> politically, who needs a
trade deal more, the united states or canada? >> interesting. states, i think the president needs to have a fundamentally modified trade deal that he can claim some wind on. , it wascan say, see flawed when i went in and now it is excellent. canada and mexico are mindful of, not only a good deal, but trophies on the shelf that the president can claim, i got what i said out to do. it was a tough negotiation and we fought hard. very tradea is dependent on the united states. a balanced trade relationship provides more exports than any other country from the united states. canada is a small country and cannot continue with the
instability with investors keeping their hands in their pockets, with manufacturers slowing down. that instability is problematic and has been for quite a while. prime minister judo's political -- prime minister trudeau's opposition is stepping up and says they're concerned about what he is doing to the economy. the first time in this process that the prime minister is getting domestic push back at home. >> if you have questions about negotiations, give us a call, democrats at 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001 negots a. independents, 202-748-8002. outside the united states, we want to hear from you, especially in the --202-748-8003 is the number and you will join the discussion.
remind viewers that the wilson center is? guest: a nonpartisan think tank created by congress in 1968. our mission is to advance understanding of the world and u.s. relations with the world. we try to bring the world to washington and take washington out to the world. one of the most important things we do is to explain the political process in washington to folks in other countries and try to advance neutral understanding. the misunderstands we have seen over the past couple of years s. host: do you think renegotiating nafta was a good idea? guest: interesting gusman people have attacked this administration for opening up a pandora's box. the fact is that for a number of years many of us have been saying i'm a nafta is an old lady of trade agreements and need to be modernized and we need a nafta 2.0. this was not the way we thought it would happen. certain positive things will come out of it.
yes, i think a lot of us believed it was time to renegotiate. guest: this is negotiated before anyone had internet in their homes, before the digital ,conomy, before online banking before a lot of the things we take for granted in shipping. third-party logistics existed. a good deal for basic commodities but did need to be updated. had gone toexico the united states and said we need to update this and the u.s. pushed back and said, i do not know, it could blow up. canada and mexico got what they wanted just not under the conditions necessary they wanted. host: patricia up first in washington, d.c., a democrat. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. caller: i had a question. how is this nafta agreement with mexico affected by trump's offered to mexico regarding the immigration money they are
people too mexico for go back to their native country? guest: that is a good question. it has gotten headlines recently. two are separate. at least officially. since donald trump came to office, the mexicans have used a comprehensive negotiation strategy in the united states. they have made a great effort to show that mexico is an important part of the united states, not just in economic terms but in terms of protecting u.s. homeland security and controlling migration flows from central america. the fact that there has been an offer from the trump administration to pay mexico to try to deal with some of the united states'immigration problems is not surprising. there is a wrinkle in the deal that could emerge. although the current administration in mexico is willing to consider it, the
incoming administration after december 1 has said that is not something they're interested in talking about with the united states. i think that is a deal that may not come to fruition. emphasize that mexico is a vital partner for the united states in terms of controlling migration flows. mexico has invested billions of dollars in building up its own infrastructure, particularly on the southern border to try to control the numbers of immigrants that are coming through the southern border and making their way through mexico to the u.s. border. the way mexico does that saves the united states aliens of dollars every year. -- saves the united states billions of dollars every year. host: tony is an independent and staten island, new york. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. nafta 2 is a good effort but i want to know, i think the
american workers want to know, how much consideration is given to the value of labor across the three states? the displacement of labor that .afta 1 created trump buttrap, not bush -- host: obama? caller: clinton, he campaigned for nafta in a sense that labor displacement will be relocated, the educated, and we would have the displacement we are faced with now. nothing was done. >> that is a great question. i sometimes taken this method 2.0, we do not think enough about -- nafta 2.0, we do not take enough about labor.
trump's president campaign statements, workers have been displaced and we need to be balance the scales. what are we doing about labor? there is a great point to be made that labor has been displaced more by automation, more by changes in technology, than by any trade agreement but the fact remains that workers used to have jobs in assembly-line to do not anymore and what are we doing about it? the new nafta include some labor provisions. we are waiting to see what will come out. we need to focus on all three countries workforce development and make sure people who are in a sector that is no longer viable get the training and support they need. they need benefits to move from one country -- one part of the country to another and need education, day care for the kids. as tony mentioned, the original nafta was supposed to have the
support and something called trade adjustment assistance, which sounded good but you have to preview lost her job because of a trade agreement. your job because of a trade agreement. if somebody lost a job, we need a program more comprehensive to help put skills where they are needed and give people new skills and deploy them more efficiently so we are more competitive in the world. host: if we move forward with this u.s.-mexico trade agreement, are these labor issues addressed in that bilateral deal? >> superficially, in my opinion. thingss -- there is some in there about guaranteed a level salaries, the percentage of the content of automobiles. there are certain new provisions in terms of labor standards that are consistent with what was agreed to by mexico in the transpacific partnership. this is not a solution for the
economic transformation they experienced in this point in time. i would like to emphasize what laura said, this is a real problem that will not go away. there is no point in blaming nafta. at the same point, you cannot ignore the problem. something needs to be done in all three countries. mexico is about to be hit extremely hard by automation with the industrial revolution. because of the kind of economy because of the kind of economy it has, the kind of manufacturing, -- host: some trilevel deal does get done, do you think president trump calls it nafta 2.0 considering his feelings about the original nafta? ofst: nafta was the victim that brands.
but i think the marine corps would object. if they want to work on a better brand, go for it but nobody is wedded to it being nafta. amc.: goat with -- go with somebody area has that. [laughter] u.s. get tiedthe up in internal politics and as someone who looks into canada from the outside, there seems to be -- not as much displeasure with justin trudeau. do you think, as he delays and outcome, or continues to stretch the negotiations, do you think will findada themselves in a better or worse position to negotiate an eventual trade deal? guest: great question. it is a fine line.
negotiators have been clear that this has to be a better deal when they leave. they cannot take shortcuts or say we got rate deal -- great deal in office but not in pharmacy. canada has been the school vice principal making sure everything gets written down. they have a good negotiating team but there is political pressure in canada, economic pressure. canada does need to come to a deal fairly shortly. if they do not do it well, it will be political problematic for justin trudeau. host: companies pressing to keep canada in nafta is the headline in the wall street journal. business groups urging the donald trump and ministry asian to keep that administration to keep canada. absolutely, that is the
way we build things together. the way the north american manufacturing and services sector work. a great thing in the washington post, infographics that showed the path of a lexus engine, went through two plants in the united states, cambridge, ontario, or other tooling and went back to the united states to be put into the lexus. if you get rid of one critical thing, whether canada or in mexico, you disrupt the supply chain and make it difficult for americans to keep jobs and for manufacturing to be as competitive as it could be. that thesurprise to me business associations are weighing in. that look liked if they waited and harder? guest: i would like to see more americans aware of where their products upfront and how much
their jobs and livelihoods are dependent on that trade deal and efficient trade. -- u.s. content is in a mexican exports. guest: the average product from mexico to the united states is 40% of the value originated in the united states. guest: similarly, products from canada, 70% in the auto sector. importing something from canada, if you cut off the canadian cars , there is no such thing as a canadian car. when you cut off that car, that is a ford and you cannot get because they ford are canadian. you are affecting supply chains. what happens when the manufacturers are no longer able to produce competitively in north carolina -- north america? they go someplace else. guest: we tend to forget about the consumer. saved billions of
dollars every year because of the integrated manufacturing systems. the conversation is developing in china and carrots with china, looking up prices for consumer goods going up, at the wilson center, a study looked at the impact of integrated production in north america between the united states, mexico, canada, and lowered prices dramatically for u.s. consumers which allows them to have more money in their pocket which they spend in their local economy. people forget about this. if you save $100 on a washing machine that is for this more cheaply in north america, you have $100 to take your family for dinner or to the movies. that is money into your local economy, that supports jobs at home. host: a special line for those outside the united states, 202-748-8003. otherwise, lines for democrats, republicans come independents as usual. bob in missouri come independent
independent.souri, caller: why in the united states i cannot go to mexico and purchase live sheep. the usda and my representatives, senators, it comes to a standstill. sheep.has excellent we need the opportunity to go down there. if we cannot go down there -- guest: a terrific question. a lot of people who are watching will not realize, part of the reality. the movement of livestock-forth across the border is an issue of critical economic importance to folks who live there. there are cattle that are moved
from mexico into the united states to graze for a certain part of the air and move back down to mexico. some move from mexico to the united states for slaughtering and processing at a meatpacking plant and go back to mexico. the specific issues, why can't you go and buy livestock in mexico and bring it back to the united states? that is a question of sanitary agriculture may commission standards at the border. those standards are deeply complex. unfortunately, there have been some interest groups that have lobbied to keep them in place to protect markets in the united states. host: u.s. has the tougher standards at the border? guest: exactly. guest: not just tougher standards but regular for a complexity. we focus so much on relatively small economic issues. high media or political value. they get headlines, but not be
things that make better for the producers and manufacturers. i read it takes 20 pieces of paper to export a cow between united states. moving back cattle and forth between our markets. if we could reduce regulatory costs and cut the red tape for guys like bob we would be better off. terrorists are not the answer. midwest --ing in the i visited the midwest and american farmers are bearing the brunt of these tariffs. host: what is the universe of terrorist right now? the total by you of the tariffs we put on canada -- total value of the tariffs we put on canada? guest: changing by the day, we expect an auto parts tariff shortly. when the u.s. but the steel aluminum caps on canada, they said that is not fair, we are not a national security threat and they put tariffs on us and
they picked the one more politically visible. iteris on the united states -- the tariffs are on agricultural products. canada has selected $400 million in tariff money they did not want to collect. because, this money when the u.s. puts a tariff on another country, they retaliate and it blocks everything. unfortunately, farmers are on the frontline because people say , let's take the washington apples, let's pick the products visible, soybeans etc. host: tariffs between the united states and mexico? guest: similar to canada. this goes back to way before the trump administration. the mexicans in a trade dispute are clever, they pick up products most politically sensitive and apply retaliatory tariffs on them. it does not mean it is a voting
group in the united states that is powerful, but they will take people on capitol hill and will choose something produced within their congressional district and punish that. that is the way you get pressure from capitol hill down to the white house. mexico has been smart about this over the years. host: smarter than canada? guest: we work together. guest: this is a tried and tested model that both countries are using. do not start a terraform -- tariff war because everybody loses. host: ron in san clemente, california, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is about the dumbest thing i have ever seen. obviously, nafta needed to be changed after many years but people forget something, in 1970 -- in the 1970's, detroit was building engines in windsor, canada, across the border from
detroit. it goes on a bridge about a half a mile. that was the start of the whole thing. saved in thes were united states with nafta. now, tariffs are about the worst thing possible. this could not happen at a worse time when we are going through a technological revolution. all of the automobile industry is changing over to electric cars. my god in heaven, if i was canada, i would say forget you, i will not supply any parts to you, i will send them across the world. i do not have to send them to view. this is a dumb concept of trying to fix nafta. nafta needs to be fixed by twe aks. guest: i could not agree more. that is it. our cross-border communities are
integrating manufacturing and production. whether san diego, detroit, windsor. i am from sault ste. marie, ontario, right next to michigan, and people are upset by these terrorist -- tariffs. suppliedn steelmaker steel for the 20 hours and now being told they are a national security threat -- twin towers and being told now they are a national security threat. this is important for all of these countries. the mexico-u.s. ties have been battered as well. i wonder whether we can recover from these fractures. host: michael in new york city, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for discussing trade. i have two questions. the first one is -- when you
were talking about the wilson commission and trade understanding, what are some elements of trade understanding that have been brought to the united states and incorporated into our system? how ared question is -- things changing now in the global trade environment? in regards to that, the united states for a long time has had trade policies mostly favorable to the united states. now, it is a global trade and changing into the interconnected system and we areinterconnectede seeing a lot of the policies we have had in place are antiquated .s showing us what is being done on a larger scale to address changing trade as a whole? let me take the second part of that question. i think they are both questions -- good questions.
the second part i find intriguing, which is that the global economy has changed. we still rely on an international trade regime created in the aftermath of the second world war when the united --tes was the dominic dominant economic power when the united states was trying to construct an international order , trying to spread peace throughout the world and when the united states was willing to make great sacrifices then its partners and allies were willing to make. one of the most important messages we have heard coming out of the trump administration is it is time for other countries to pay their way, to pay their fair share and this idea of reciprocity in trade agreements. in the past there has always been if you cut your tariffs by 10%, i will cut mine. toyou begin at a 40% reflect, you have been reduced
40% down to 36%. if i started with a 10% to reflect the, i go from 10% to 9%. that is a huge gap. i think it is time for an honest conversation between the greater economic powers to say, shouldn't we bring our tariffs levels down to the same level exactly? 5%, theniff levels are your terrace levels should be 5%. that is a conversation we have been avoiding. that would be a positive step. it would be something that would open up opportunities. guest: i like michael's question. the global trading system rose came out of four more to. they were primarily led by the united states as one of the world's surviving economic powers. canada and mexico looked at the u.s. and said maybe these are not the rules we would have chosen but we are going to put our lot in with a winner.
we think the u.s. is going to be a leading economic power. a good example is look at the dashboard of the european car and north american car. there are differences. people had to decide which system. most of the rules in the to be commercial policies, commercial lives, settling disputes for investors, for tracking. what happens if you make the rules, and the system works to your advantage? european union have to switch when they are dealing with the u.s. they do not like that. now we have the united states removing itself from global rule just making. canada and mexico are left saying, where do we go? we are looking at issues of security. we need new rules on digital. we need new rules on financial. i am not sure who else i trust
to be that kind of global rules leader. sometimes the americans step out of bounds, but at least always with relatively good intentions. that is what canadians want. with the u.s. not there temporarily, we are at a wash as to who is next. in, --f you want to join democrats: 202-748-8000 republicans: 202-748-8001 independents: 202-748-8002 or outside the u.s., 202-748-8003. ruth, democrat. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, ma'am. caller: i wanted to make a comment that when civilized countries get together to make treaties or deals, they are looking for a win-win