BUSINESS EXCLUSIVE, JOEL TRACK
MAN, PROFESSOR OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW AT THE
FLETCHER SCHOOL OF LAW AND
DIPLOMACY.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, OUR
VIEWERS REALLY LOVE TO LISTEN TO
EVERY WORD YOU SAY BECAUSE OF
YOUR EXPERTISE.
GIVE US YOUR AT 30,000 FEET LOOK
AT THE U.S. MCA THAT THE
PRESIDENT JUST TOOK A VICTORY
LAP ON IN PHILADELPHIA?
>> THANK YOU, LIZ.
WELL IT'S A GOOD DEAL.
IT'S A HYBRID BETWEEN THE 1993
NAFTA, THE ORIGINAL NAFTA,
AND THE TRANS PACIFIC
PARTNERSHIP WHICH PRESIDENT
TRUMP REJECTED HIS FIRST DAYS IN
OFFICE WHICH WAS NEGOTIATED BY
THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION, SO THE
ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS ARE THE
SAME, EXCEPT FOR THOSE AUTO
PROVISIONS WHICH YOU MENTIONED
IN A FEW MINOR POINTS THE
ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS ARE THE
SAME AS THE ORIGINAL NAFTA AND
THEY PROVIDE FOR ZERO TARIFFS
WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS BETWEEN
CANADA, MEXICO AND THE UNITED
STATES AND THEN A LOT OF THE
MODERNIZATION THAT 1,993 YEAH
AGREEMENT NEEDED MODERNIZATION
IS IN THE FORM OF PROVISIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE
TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP WHICH
MEXICO AND CANADA ARE PARTY TO
BUT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S AN
E-COMMERCE CHAPTER AND I CHECKED
THAT CAREFULLY AGAINST THE TRANS
PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
E-COMMERCE CHAPTER AND IT'S
ALMOST IDENTICAL AND SO FOR A
LOT OF THE NEW THINGS THERE ARE
THINGS THAT THE UNITED STATES
WOULD HAVE HAD IF IT HAD ENTERED
THE TRANSPACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AND
ALSO WE WOULD HAVE HAD WITH 11
OTHER COUNTRIES AND MAYBE
EVENTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO CONVINCE
CHINA TO SIGN ON TO THE 21ST
CENTURY TRADE OBLIGATIONS
THAT WERE OF THE TYPE WE WANT.
LIZ: I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP
CHINA.
LET'S GET TO THIS.
DOES THIS NOW THE FACT THAT WE
HAVE A DEAL, SO TO SPEAK NOT
VOTED UPON YET BY CONGRESS BUT A
DEAL WITH MEXICO AND CANADA BOX
CHINA IN NOW, PUSH THEM CLOSER
TO A FINISH LINE WHERE THE U.S.
CAN MEET THEM PART WAY IF
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TRUE, AND
WE DON'T HAVE A MASSIVE OVERHAUL
OF NAFTA.
YOU SEE THE ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTAL
S ARE BASICALLY THE
SAME.
I'VE HEARD THE WORD COSMETIC.
I DO SEE MORE SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES WITHIN IT BUT IF THAT'S
TRUE SHOULDN'T CHINA LOOK UPON
THAT AS WELL WE DON'T HAVE TO GO
TOO FAR IN GETTING A DEAL WITH
AMERICA, OR AGREEING TO A DEAL
WITH THE U.S..
>> WELL CERTAINLY IF NAFTA HAD
ENDED, CHINA WOULD HAVE SEEN
THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAD THE
UNITED STATES IN A TOUGHER
POSITION, WITHOUT MEXICO
ESPECIALLY BUT ALSO CANADA AS
ZERO TARIFF COMPETITORS, SO IT
GIVES THE UNITED STATES A LITTLE
MORE LEVERAGE AGAINST CHINA, AND
IT ALSO MEANS THAT THE UNITED
STATES IS FIGHTING A ONE-FRONT
TRADE WAR WITH CHINA SO THE
UNITED STATES CAN DO THAT BUT WE
STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM OF HOW DO
WE CONVINCE CHINA TO CHANGE ITS
WHOLE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE, ITS
STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISE, ITS
STRUCTURE AS A NON-MARKET
ECONOMY.
LIZ: BUT DOES THIS AGREEMENT
PUSH THEM INTO A POSITION WHERE
THEY'RE OUT THERE ON AN ISLAND,
A MANMADE ISLAND AND THEY MAN
MAKE ISLANDS ALL THE TIME
OUT IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA WHICH
WE DON'T LIKE CERTAINLY BUT DOES
THIS PUSH THEM OUT THERE?
I KNOW THE EUROPEAN UNION
DOESN'T HAVE AN EXACT DEAL AT
THE MOMENT BUT OBVIOUSLY WE'RE A
LITTLE CLOSER WITH THEM.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT IT DOES.
THINK IS NOT SO DIFFERENT FROM
NAFTA CLASSIC SO IT'S JUST THE
STATUS QUO TO A LARGE EXTENT.
THE UNITED STATES HASN'T PUT
ITSELF INTO A WORSE POSITION AND
AS I SAID THE UNITED STATES NOW
CAN CONCENTRATE ON CHINA AND
HOPEFULLY THE UNITED STATES HAS
BEGUN TO WORK WITH EUROPE AND
JAPAN, TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A