NAFTA 2.0: The Best Trade Agreement Ever Negotiated (Except for All of the Others)

Conclusion: Criterion is almost met).Would limit the use of so-called trade remedy or trade defense measures.Trade remedy laws give domestic industries recourse to trade restrictions when they can demonstrate injury caused by “dumped,” subsidized, or substantially increasing imports. Theselaws are prone to misuse and abuse and become loopholes through which the benefits of trade barrier reduction achieved in the agreement can be quickly rescinded.   In USMCA, no restrictions on the use of antidumping, countervailing duty, or safeguard measures are made. Rather, the long arm of the Safeguard law extends further under the revised deal by making it more difficult for Canadian and Mexican exporters to be excused from prospective safeguard tariffs. Moreover, the failure of the United States agreeing to blanket exemptions for Canada and Mexico from prospective tariffs on imported automobiles under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the failure of the United States to remove the existing Section 232 tariffs on Canadian and Mexican aluminum and steel —thereby enshrining the view of Canada and Mexico as threats to U.S. national security—is in extremely poor taste, violates the spirit of a trade agreement, and reflects an absence of understanding of the meaning of being a good trade partner. (Conclusion: Criterion worse than unmet.)Would open all government procurement markets to goods and services providers from the other party.“Buy American” and “Buy ...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs