Best thing about NAFTA 2.0? It could have been worse

It’s a bad deal, with little pretence about its shift from free trade to managed trade. Even the new name reflects that: we have moved from a North American free trade agreement to a U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement.

The trade negotiation can be seen as part of a wider Donald Trump vision of the world, a clash of civilizations best symbolized by its visceral fear and hatred of China, one where the U.S. is assailed from all sides and where the U.S. must lash out to advance and secure America First, writes David Crane. Photograph courtesy of Gage Skidmore

Opinion

BY DAVID CRANE

October 8, 2018

TORONTO—The best that can be said about NAFTA 2.0 is that it could have been worse. It’s a bad deal, with little pretence about its shift from free trade to managed trade. Even the new name reflects that: we have moved from a North American free trade agreement to a U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement....

To keep reading, subscribe and become a political insider.

Only $7.76 a week for an annual subscription.

Enjoy unlimited website access and the digital newspaper.

Cancel anytime.

Already a Subscriber?

Get Weekend Point of View Newsletter

A round up of the past weekâ€™s opinion writers and columnists on Saturdays and Sundays.

By entering your email address you consent to receive email from The Hill Times containing news, analysis, updates and offers. You may unsubscribe at any time. See our privacy policy