Briefings designed to help you keep abreast of the latest developments and business implications related to NAFTA negotiations.
Since the last NAFTA Insights, little progress has been made and it is becoming increasingly clear that the future of NAFTA negotiations will lie on US willingness to water-down 'poison pills'. With Eurasia Group providing the latest developments from Round 5 of the renegotiations, this edition considers what no regrets decisions you could be making in light of this protracted uncertainty.
On 22 November, the fifth round of NAFTA talks concluded without significant advances. As expected, the round was marked by technical negotiations and review of the controversial proposals set forth in previous rounds by the US team.
At the beginning of the round, the US introduced a revised document of its priorities and objectives for the renegotiation. Underscored in this document is the US’ insistence on higher rules of origin, the sunset clause, reciprocity on government procurement, elimination of Chapter 19 on dispute settlement mechanisms and changes to Canada’s supply management system. Eurasia Group sees these as clear red lines for the Mexican and Canadian teams and, thus, talks continue to stall.
Now negotiators from Canada and Mexico will draft counterproposals to the issues the US has brought to the table. Eurasia Group predicts that the future of the renegotiations will depend on the willingness from the US to water-down its proposals. So far the only topic with a formal counterproposal is the sunset clause. Mexico is proposing a periodic revision of the treaty instead of an automatic termination of the agreement every 5 years should one of the parties wish to withdraw. The US did not seem to outwardly object to the idea, but a formal agreement has not yet been reached. Other issues such as rules of origin, dispute settlement and supply management mechanisms were seemingly put on the back burner, but will be addressed in subsequent rounds.
On the less contentious issues no chapters were closed either, although both Mexico and Canada announced in separate statements that there had been significant advances on anti-corruption, telecommunications, digital commerce and good regulatory practices.
Despite the Mexican and Canadians’ apparent reluctance to accept the US proposals, Eurasia Group considers that it is unlikely that President Trump will send the letter giving a 6 month notice of his intent to withdraw the US from NAFTA in the near-term. Tax reform is seen as being of greater importance; intervention in NAFTA negotiations would likely only generate friction with certain Republican congressmen who are big supporters of NAFTA, and Trump needs their support to pass proposed tax reforms.
That said, Eurasia Group predicts that Trump’s incentive to send the withdrawal letter will increase toward the end of Q1 2018 as other domestic policy priorities fade to the background. Eurasia Group considers that the letter would only be used as leverage in the negotiations to pressure Mexico and Canada to accept US demands; Trump does not seem to want to eliminate NAFTA once and for all or he would have done so already, according to Eurasia Group.
The willingness of the US to continue negotiating past March, the result of the presidential elections in Mexico and the US midterm elections will all impact the future of the renegotiations. In a scenario where the negotiations are not resolved, the original NAFTA framework would still stand but under increased uncertainty, which would likely hurt investment and slow trade in the region.
With uncertainty over the end goal likely extending to at least Q1 of 2018, if not longer, waiting and seeing the direction of travel before you take action can be entirely appropriate – so long as you have a plan and are prepared to take action.
Provided that some scenario planning is done in advance, as a general rule of thumb, there is nothing wrong with waiting for greater clarity over the end state before (for example):
One caveat to this – it is important to identify any responsive actions that need a longer lead time. The (very) minor upside to a withdrawal (bluff or otherwise) is a ticking clock – and therefore clarity on the ‘when’ to take action. Where any action needs more than 6 months to implement, now is the time to be weighing up the cost of preparing (and probability of withdrawal) against the cost of being caught out.
The flip side of this is that there are a number of decisions that can be made or actions taken now at minimal cost or operational impact, that increase the preparedness of your business to mitigate – or take advantage of - possible changes to (or cessation of) NAFTA. So while you wait for that clarity over the end state of negotiations, why not: