"Union under the city" deprives the two countries of trade autonomy and officially takes effect to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement

US-Mexico Agreement: Typical "American First" (Global Hotspot)

　　Our reporter Li Jiabao

　　On July 1, local time, the "U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as the "U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement") came into force, officially replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement that entered into force in 1994. Expert analysis believes that in the context of the impact of the new coronary pneumonia epidemic and the economies of various countries, the implementation prospects and effects of the new agreement are still a question mark. At the same time, some of the newly revised articles reflect the interests of the American family, and it is difficult to bring true equal free trade.

　　U.S.-led agreement

　　The day the US-Mexico-Canada agreement came into effect, the United States vigorously advocated the various benefits brought by the new agreement. US Trade Representative Lighthizer issued a statement saying, "Today marks the beginning of a new chapter in the US trade with Mexico and Canada." He said that the agreement will bring more employment, stronger labor protection, expanded market access, and provide more trade opportunities for enterprises.

　　Mexico and Canada also have high expectations for the new agreement. Mexican President Lopez affirmed the significance of the agreement in the economic and trade field. Mexican Minister of Economy Graciela Marquez said at the press conference that it hopes that the entry into force of the agreement will offset the negative economic impact of the new coronary pneumonia epidemic. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau said recently that given the total trade volume between members of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2018 is close to 1.5 trillion Canadian dollars, the importance of the new agreement for maintaining free and fair trade among the three countries cannot be overemphasized. .

　　On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico entered into force, and the North American Free Trade Area was officially established, becoming the world's largest regional economic integration organization. Since 2017, the U.S. government has repeatedly criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement for causing the loss of U.S. manufacturing, demanded that the agreement be renegotiated, and even threatened with "retreat."

　　The negotiation of the new agreement has experienced a long "tug of war". In September 2018, the United States, Mexico and Canada initially agreed to update the North American Free Trade Agreement and signed the agreement in November of that year. However, due to the serious differences among the three countries in many fields, after the agreement was signed, many rounds of negotiations took place. During this period, the United States continued to exert pressure on Mexico and Canada, once threatening to impose tariffs. In November 2019, representatives of the three countries signed a revised version of the agreement.

　　In an interview with this reporter, Yuan Zheng, a researcher at the American Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that from the perspective of the negotiation process, the United States has adopted a strategy of negotiating with Mexico and Canada separately. Compromise and compromise. It can be said that the new agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada was completely signed under the leadership of the United States.

　　Reflect "America First"

　　Compared with the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement has substantially revised the industry layout, dispute settlement and other terms, and updated and upgraded aspects such as digital trade, intellectual property rights, financial services, investment, labor, and environmental protection. .

　　It is worth noting that the new agreement establishes stricter rules of origin for automobiles, that is, 75% of auto parts must be produced in three countries in order to enjoy zero tariffs, while the standard in the original agreement is 62.5%. In terms of labor treatment, the new agreement stipulates that by 2023, 40%-45% of the parts of zero-tariff vehicles must be produced by workers with a minimum wage of $16 per hour. At the same time, the United States will establish an inter-departmental labor committee to perform supervisory and law enforcement functions.

　　Yuan Zheng pointed out that the new regulations on labor treatment will make Mexico bear the brunt of the impact. As a developing country, Mexico may lose the traditional advantage of low labor costs. The relevant rules of labor law enforcement are suspected of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, which may lead to disputes in the future. Increased labor costs will cause production costs to rise, and the export competitiveness of Mexican products will be negatively affected. The principle of origin of automobiles will restrict the import of steel and aluminum raw materials from Mexico, Canada and other regions. The United States intends to increase the competitiveness of its manufacturing industry.

　　At the same time, the new agreement also includes the exclusiveness of non-market economy countries, also known as the "poison pill clause", that is, if any one of the three parties and non-market economy countries reach a free trade agreement, the other two parties can kick it out of the agreement. This means that the future trade autonomy of Mexico and Canada is greatly restricted.

　　In the view of the US, the US-Mexico-Canada agreement fully embodies the US government's "free, fair, and equal" international trade value orientation. However, public opinion generally believes that the main purpose of the equivalence and fairness it advocates is to reduce the trade surplus between Mexico and Canada and the United States, which is undoubtedly more in the interest of the United States. Yuan Zheng pointed out that Mexico and Canada are highly dependent on the US market, and the two countries and the US are not equal in the international trading system. Mexico and Canada must make corresponding concessions in order to reach an agreement to preserve the export market to the United States.

　　In addition, the United States advertised the US-Mexico-Canada agreement as "the highest standard trade agreement in the 21st century." The analysis is divided into that the United States attempts to promote the relevant provisions of the US-Mexico-Canada agreement to lead the reform of the international trade system. Yuan Zheng pointed out that in recent years, the U.S. government’s tendency toward trade protectionism has become obvious, and even believes that “the whole world is taking advantage of the United States”, and is interested in multilateralism. At present, the United States is strengthening bilateral negotiations with various economies and trying to promote the "poison pill clause", which will have an adverse impact on the international economic cooperation atmosphere and the international multilateral trading system.

　　Doubt about implementation prospects

　　Unlike the high-profile US government publicity, business and academic circles are generally cautious about the prospects of the US-Mexico-Canada agreement.

　　The National Foreign Trade Council of the United States recently said that for many commercial activities, the US-Mexico-Canada agreement ended its uncertainty for three years, but the success of this agreement also depends on the status of implementation. A study released by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a well-known think tank in the United States, believes that the stricter rules of origin of automobiles in the new agreement will restrict trade and damage related industries in the United States, which will adversely affect the economies of the three countries. Some industry experts are concerned that the new rules of the US-Mexico-Canada agreement will increase the cost of car manufacturers and the cost of car purchases by consumers.

　　Yuan Zheng pointed out that it is impossible to expect the US-Mexico-Canada agreement to completely offset the economic impact of the new coronary pneumonia epidemic. At present, the epidemic is still spreading in many parts of the Americas. The economic activities of the three countries of the United States, Mexico and Canada have not yet returned to normal levels. It is difficult to see the implementation effect of the agreement in the short term. The International Monetary Fund also said recently that under the impact of the epidemic, the US-Mexico-Canada agreement is not enough to make up for the decline in investment and economy in the next two years. Mexico’s Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said without worries that for Mexico, the new agreement is a “bet for future development”.

　　For some industries in Canada, the variables still exist. According to a recent report from Bloomberg, the United States is considering again imposing tariffs on Canadian aluminum products. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau responded that the United States needs Canadian aluminum. If the US imposes tariffs, it will only increase its manufacturing investment and consumer costs, and damage the US economy.

　　Yuan Zheng pointed out that the US-Mexico-Canada agreement is not a completely equal agreement. It is bound to breed contradictions and conflicts, which will gradually emerge in the future implementation process.