Mexico’s Potential Weapons if Trump Declares War on Nafta

>The makings of a Mexican strategy for defending its interests started coming into focus on Monday, when President Enrique Peña Nieto declared that negotiations for a future relationship with the United States would not be limited to trade.

>“We will bring to the table all themes,” he said in a speech. “Trade, yes, but also migration and the themes of security, including border security, terrorist threats and the traffic of illegal drugs, weapons and cash.”

>His hope is that by introducing broader uncertainty about the bilateral relationship — Will Mexico still cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking? Will it stop foreign terrorists from using Mexico as a way station into the United States? — Mexico can raise the stakes enough for Mr. Trump to reconsider his “America first” approach to commerce.

>“Mexico has a lot of chips to play,” said Jorge Castañeda, a former foreign secretary who has staked out a combative approach.

>Let Mr. Trump pull the United States out of Nafta, he argues. Instead of stopping Central American migrants at its southern border, Mexico should let them through on their way to the United States. “And let’s see if his wall keeps the terrorists out, because we won’t,” Mr. Castañeda added.

>The view from Mexico City is not uniformly bleak. Some analysts believe there is a potential for a situation in which a new Nafta benefits all. “I have always believed one should never let a good crisis go to waste,” said Arturo Sarukhán, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States. “There is an opportunity that we could end up modernizing and improving Nafta.”
...

>The view that there is a potential silver lining to Mr. Trump’s hostility toward Nafta is also popular in some Washington circles. The quarter-century-old agreement is due for some modernization anyway, if only to deal with things like data protection, online crime and e-commerce — which were not around in the early 1990s. Nafta’s weak provisions on labor and environmental standards could also be improved.

>Many aspects of Nafta could be upgraded, trade experts say. It could do with new rules to open up government projects to bidders from all three Nafta partners. Allowing long-haul trucking companies from Mexico and the United States into each other’s markets could make trade between the two more efficient. What’s more, the Mexican-American border could benefit from more infrastructure investments to integrate energy networks, reduce clogged lines at border crossings and the like.

>Now that Mr. Trump has formally nixed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would have tied North America and nine other nations from the Pacific Rim into one large trade bloc, some of its provisions could be drafted into a new North American deal.

>Gary Hufbauer of the pro-trade Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington suggests that the name “Nafta” be retired — it has a bad reputation. But a lot of its substance could remain, perhaps in the form of separate bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico.
...

>“Trump wants some easy victories,” Mr. Hufbauer pointed out. If he can score political points using his Twitter feed to persuade a few companies to keep jobs in the United States, why risk hurting the American economy by abandoning the North American trade deal? “Maybe that’s the reconciliation,” Mr. Hufbauer said.

>Still, it’s hard to reconcile the proposal for an improved, more effective trading pact in North America with Mr. Trump’s frequent portrayal of trade as a zero-sum game that inevitably shortchanges the United States.

>In Mr. Trump’s eyes, improving Nafta seems to mean eliminating Mexico’s trade surplus with the United States and limiting investment by American multinationals in Mexico. But one can’t quickly eliminate a $60 billion trade surplus with a new Nafta — not unless it has some incredibly draconian limits on imports or local content requirements that could be as damaging to Mexico as abandoning the pact altogether.

>Many Mexican officials fear that it is precisely this kind of draconian change that Mr. Trump has in mind. It would be politically profitable, at least in the short term. And it would signal toughness to China — a more formidable rival that is next on Mr. Trump’s list. If Canada stays out of the fray, cutting a separate deal with the United States to replace Nafta, Mexico would be left alone in an existential fight for its future.

>In this case, Mexico may have no choice but to raise the stakes and hope to arrive at the negotiating table with a threat at least as credible as Mr. Trump’s promise to pull out of the deal.
...

>Mr. Trump’s negotiating position does have some soft spots. For one, said Mickey Kantor, the American trade negotiator who concluded the Nafta negotiations during the Clinton administration, “he is under pressure to deliver a deal.”


>If Mexico stands its ground and even allows Nafta to dissolve, it would send its own signal to China: Resistance is not futile. And Mr. Trump’s threat to raise tariffs against Mexico to 35 percent could easily be challenged under the rules of the World Trade Organization.

>This is, of course, a hugely risky strategy for Mexico. When Mr. Trump entered the presidential race in June 2015, a dollar was worth about 15 pesos. Now it’s worth about 22. A frontal confrontation with the United States might send it to 40, Mexican officials fear, fueling capital flight.

>And yet that may be Mexico’s strongest card.

>As noted by C. Fred Bergsten, director emeritus of the Peterson Institute, an irony of Mr. Trump’s approach to Mexico is that by weakening the peso so much, he is going to increase the bilateral trade deficit, increase Mexico’s competitiveness and make it more attractive for American companies to invest there. “That is going to swamp anything he achieves with his company-by-company efforts,” he added.

>That’s if Mexico manages to hold on. The more ominous situation is one in which the United States pushes too hard and Mexico — its economy, its unpopular government, its public order and political stability — buckles. The United States has enjoyed a peaceful southern border for 100 years, since Pancho Villa made his marauding raids into the Southwest during the Mexican Revolution. “That is worth pure gold in this and any other world,” Mr. Castañeda said. “Mexico’s best argument is ‘Don’t mess with that.’”

>aiding and abetting terrorists
I don't think they understand what will happen to them if that happens.

>>103580
>How could Mexico inflict the most damage on the United States?
>A: It can't really but this headline will sell like crack.

>>103589
>>103588
>>103586
>>103580
>Mexico's best tactic is "d-don't mess with us or our government will collapse and make your border bad ;)"

What a fucking joke

>If you don't allow us to drain money away from the US we will become an even shittier neighbor

Mexico is country of peace :')

>>103787
Did you know that is NKorea's threat to China?

>gib monies plz or 6 gorillion Norks will flood your border

I hope Mexico does try to fuck with us. Then we can glass their shitty country

Why not just annex Mexico?

>>103915
Why would you, or anybody, want to own Mexico?

Really, what doe's mechico have that would make you wan't to occupie it?

The biggest importer to Mexico is the US
The biggest exporter from Mexico is the US

What the fuck is Mexico going to do when their economy relies on the US?

>>103581
>Will Mexico still cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking?

Cooperate? Cooperate with who? The only people they cooperate with are the fucking cartels.

>>103580
you know, it aggravates me that mexico wants it both ways....they want to trade with us and make money but they won't do anything to reel in the cartels and keep their own populace in line by not illegally immigrating....

fuck them if they want to be in charge.....if they abided by rule of law then they might have some credibility....

>>103929
Endure the outcome, I guess.

A s a whole, citizens of both countries will suffer to one degree or another from a trade war in the long term though, because they'll be arbitrarily affected by boundaries based on whom to buy and sell from.

I don't see why it matters who looses worse. It's not like we're at war with them or they're giving us a terribly raw deal. Mexico is a developing economy that still mostly and increasingly abides free trade at any rate.

>>104032
>keep their own populace in line by not illegally immigrating....
What do you want them to fucking do, shoot their own citizens as try to flee the country? Do you want East Germany on your doorstep?

>>104032
I don't know what their approach to cartels has been, and they probably could do more on illegal immigrants. But I think it's worth considering the most cost-effective way to address both of those grievances as a separate issue. Maybe the solution will somehow involve our approach to trade with them. But it seems an arbitrary solution to say "they have border issues, so a potential trade war is justified".

>>104043
Maybe they should build a wall.

>>104043
Maybe they could at least stop giving out pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to America, how to stay hidden, and what to do if you get caught.

>>104054
What the fuck are you talking about?

What pamphlets?

>>104060
Im having troubling finding a link to the pamphlet itself. Theres plenty of articles about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/01/05/mexico-provides-guide-to-illegal-immigration.html

I used to get the pdf from here but now its broken.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1315378/posts

>>104063
>2005
still-relevant/10

>>104063
It's a good thing George W. Bush liked mexican immigrants.

Mexico all though lacking in the tradiditional sense of weaponry such as nukes and military forces compared to the US does have the upper hand in this situation. there is an estimated 19-25 billion dollars recorded trafficking through mexico into the US. If for example you wanted to wipe out a whole country one wouldt do so openly where you can trace it back to your country. Such as military attack or nukes. you attack their resources subtly. This way you avoid international intervention. If for example one wanted to wipe out millions of people one could simply lace marijuana nugs with anthrax or dust it in rat poison. AND THIS ISNT SAYING IT WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE I LITERALLY KNOW NOTHING IM AN IDIOT. But dont say theres o way mexico couldt do serious harm cause idc if its laced in anthrax id still smoke a mexican nug.

Import tariffs will only hurt the US.

>>104779
What the fuck are you even saying? Are you implying that Mexico will smuggle in anthrax and anthrax people to death? How the bloody hell did you come to this conclusion? I'm pretty sure attacking the global hegemons population by the millions with chemical and biological weapons is just asking for a nuclear response. Please stop posting.

>>104070
>>104072
How can i recover from these devastating blows?

>>104043
>What do you want them to fucking do

Stop assisting the Cartels for starters.

Oh who the fuck am I kidding. Just exterminate their government and put the Cartels in charge. It'd be a more honest government, and at least they know how to run a business. The Mexican government is frankly less redeemable than the Cartels.

>>104923
Why do idiots think governments should be run like businesses??

>>104923
I imagine it is very difficult to take too active a stance against cartels if they've got your family at gunpoint.

>>104975
This is only apt if GDP is the primary goal of your nation.

>>104032
>keep their own populace in line by not illegally immigrating
How retarded are you faggot?

How is there government responsible for stopping people breaking our laws?

>>104923
>Stop assisting the Cartels for starters

Kinda hard to do that when they got everyone under fear of being executed, including civilians.

>>103580
Mexico should just legalize all drugs and let the cartels degrade into glorified smugglers.

>>105029
If its really that bad get NATO and the UN involved.

I seriously don't understand

What purpose does the wall serve? Beyond memes and keeping his voters content and feeling like hot blooded Americans. Why would you waste so many resources building a wall (it's just gonna be a long ass wore fence right?) And alienating a country whom you've had good relationship with for centuries?
Why would you do this?

People are more remembered for Tearing down walls than building them. What does this serve?

>>105031
I'm just waiting for the US to go to war with Mexico because the current government doesn't do jackshit about the countless acts of violence going on here.

Just give me the chance to join your army America, I'm tired of this shitty ass government.

>>105036
I assumed the president of Mexico and the leader of the Cartel are basically the same guy

>>105033

Well I'd imagine it would serve as an impediment to illegal migration but there's an opportunity cost to every investment.

So we're decided that we need to prevent illegal immigration from south of the border; how many people will a wall actually successfully deter? What other permutation of personnel, infrastructure, systems could we invest in to match or exceed the estimated effectiveness of the wall, and which among those is the cheapest option?

The wall was popular because it was symbolic; Trump certainly didn't decide to run the numbers before he proposed it. Same as any of his other "nationalist" suggestions. Nationalism just means short-sighted self-interest instead of nuanced strategies evaluated and engineered by experts to optimize cost/benefit.

It still convinces people because folks don't trust the latter since they don't have the knowledge to understand it. Until now the citizenry has trusted a free press however to keep those in power honest. So naturally Trump's team made it a central tenet of their strategy to erode public press in the mass medias. Otherwise, the "nationalist" approach as they call it seems less nationalist and more ill informed with respect to their stated goals at least.

>>104983
>>105029
To protect their own families they've sentenced the rest of their population to hell under rule of the Cartels who can abduct who they please and slaughter them in the most barbaric ways to make a minor point.

They are not good people. They don't deserve an iota of pity. They sent in the army to gun down the people when the people finally tried to revolt against the hell they're forced to live in.

>>105038
From my understanding, the cartels put Nieto in charge with help from the two TV conglomerates that air pretty much everything, they funded his entire presidential campaign.

Obrador, Nieto's political rival and also presidential candidates, lost because el PRI rigged the elections, and I'm not talking about false accusations like Trump and Hillary claim, I'm talking bribing poor folks with money to vote for them, burning and hiding voting ballots, fucking using cartels to threaten rural communities into voting for them and running smear campaigns against Obrador, meaning they fabricated videos where they painted him as someone who was willing to sell the country to get rich and used Televisa and TV Azteca to spread those "facts", guess who owns those two TV companies and who gets rich from them spreading falsehood?

Now you won't really find much information from international sources because A) Nobody really cares outside Mexico and B) The ones that did report these things are either dead, missing or have their days numbered.

>>105047

how would the cartels participate in this trade war, I suppose they want some stability and keep things calm so they keep doing bussiness

>>103929

If trump pulls out of NAFTA a salad will cost $50. He probably pays that for a salad anyway so he doesn't give a fuck. Congrats on voting in that piece of shit you retards.

Breaking News
.
Mexico triples the price of Cocaine!
.
Hollywood Flummoxed!

> Will it stop foreign terrorists from using Mexico as a way station into the United States?

I looove this talking point wether its used against Canada or Mexico its a great bit of propaganda to enflame Amerikuks and nonKuks alike. A hallmark of CIA "journalism". Bravo Op.

>>105062
Who knows, but I bet you they won't stand around waiting for things to happen, do expect more killings and kidnappings, especially foreign tourists.

>>105033

Hadrian's wall, antonine wall, great wall of china. There's tons of walls that are famous for existing rather than being destroyed.

But to your point, I see what you mean. It's easy enough to dig tunnels under the wall. Smuggle people in on trucks, make holes and pay coyotes to go across the desert.

It's just extremely fucking stupid. "The Mexican Border" is so much more than that stupid little line the mainstream media keeps drawing on a map. There are so many routes in and out of the US, including by water, by tunnel, and by air. Building that wall does not build a safe border, it builds a backing for all of the bigotry coming out of the US against non-evangelic dark people.

>>103922
Land you shitstain. It's the most important resource to own

>>105069
So go eat some American beef you schmuck.

Oh boo hoo muh Avocados will cost more and I can't make muh Jeb guac

>>105026
Because those people are coming from their fucking country you flaming faggot

>>105040
>Nationalism just means short-sighted self-interest instead of nuanced strategies evaluated and engineered by experts to optimize cost/benefit
Oh yeah, I'm sure all the girls in Europe being raped by Muslims and having their cultures and countries whittled to the bone are just too bucktoothed and simply to understand the true master plan.

I guess when white people are a majority-minority in their own countries, they'll FINALLY wake up and understand why nationalism is not only icky and gross, but also stupid!

>>105285
We figured out how to stop tunnels in WWI and II, none of this shit matters anymore when we can easily and forcefully prevent the great majority of it.

>>105357
cracka you already dead boi

>>105357
Does it have to be one or the other?

Can white people have legitimate grievances regarding the level of their demographic presence and culture and also deny corporatism, accept EPA,

Does Whites' real concern about their seeming demographic freefall have to come with so much baggage regarding the state of our biosphere and the ability for the poor to access social services?

In European, why does white concern have to be aired along side extreme fear of ethnic cleansing of minorities? Will we ever be able to have honest, nuanced, and compassionate platforms that recognizes all of these things in the West? Why does a former Nazi in Austria have to be at the forefront of giving a voice to the anti-immigration crowd? Can't every demographic in every country be treated with compassion and dignity deserving of innocent living things at the same time, and tell none that their common grievances are illegitimate? You have a real concern; why make it so easy for others to malign?

>>105029
Oh well keep supporting the cartels then. It's fine.

>>104050
They did. Most of the illegal immigrants coming in recently have been from Central America. USA gave Mexico money to build a wall to the south. It is just that a wall between mexico and the US would be like 10 times as long and require much more supervision and maintenance

>>105426
The answer is quite simple. The people who support policies that lead to demographic replacement make opposing them a matter of morality to such a point that merely apprehending to their ideas results in a de facto admission of bigotry, racism, and xenophobia. In such an atmosphere, the only people who can openly oppose them are those who are honest and proud of those terms. Calling someone a racist does no damage if they're proud of the fact, it only works on those who don't see it as a good thing.

If the supporters of such open immigration had listened to moderates when they warned of the dangers their unchecked policies represented it wouldn't have come to this, but now it's either continue the freefall or adopt extreme measures. The saying, "Better a tough solution now instead of an insane one tomorrow," exists for such a reason.

It's sad, but I do agree with you in that I don't want wholesale corporatism and complete negligence to the environment, but I also don't want anymore open immigration. I want European governments to incentivize their own populations to replenish themselves instead of importing cheap foreign labor and facilitating wholesale demographic replacement.

And in the US, the government needs to stop avalanches of immigration that set up ethnic enclaves with parallel societies and retards the process of natural assimilation.

>>105440
>I want European governments to incentivize their own populations to replenish themselves instead of importing cheap foreign labor and facilitating wholesale demographic replacement.

then your country needs to stop worshiping GDP. I'm not saying 'herp derp, be poor' but don't make it number 1

>>105441
The thing is, this is a problem that could have been seen coming far off on the horizon. If European governments saw their native populations having less children they could have taken actions to reduce the problem and reverse the trend, but instead they chose to ignore it because foreign immigration offset the loss.

It's a hard set of principles to break, especially since both the left and the right like it for their own various reasons.

>>105442
The EU doesn't care about Europeans, so why would they try to enact policies to help them? The EU was based around dissolving Europe and it's people, to be replaced with a fragmented populace to divide and conquer for everlasting political and monetary gain.

/news/ - Trump

>>105040
This is the kind of post that keeps me coming back to 4chan and combing through the bullshit in the hopes of finding more insightful and well written comments like it. Thank you.

California would be better without all the white people.

>>105549
California would be better without all the poor people.

>>105549
>>105593
California would be better without people.

>>105547
Stay on reddit pussy

>>105466
I unironically think there are actual paid shills here that just come to post as much anti-Republican/Conservative rhetoric as they can, and has been the case since not long after /news/ opened, especially when the elections started up. Obviously you can't prove it, but after a little while of actually checking /news/ regularly I started to think, "Holy fuck am I actually reading an honest to god shill post?", because so many posts and threads just used the same logic, terms, post style, and whatever else, like they were going off a list. And it wasn't trolling, because there was nobody even here to troll, it was something else.

I guess /news/ is just an easy target since nobody really posts here and you can easily create an overwhelming or at least healthy counter narrative easily since there's a lot of space to fill, and /pol/ is beyond being a lost cause aside from making "HAHAHA DUMPF IS LUMPFED" threads that nobody takes seriously.

>>105604
One mistake, they arent paid. Mostly. We all have agendas these days, given to us by shills but thats a secret.

The beauty is how they've got us shilling for free.

Every group is like this. Leftists most obviously. Even WHite Nationalism is subverted this way.

Show me a group that isnt controlled by memes cause I dont see one.

>>105608
People who take on a neutral stance?

>>105604
>because so many posts and threads just used the same logic, terms, post style, and whatever else

Well, it could be paid shilling, or it could also be that the board happens to have a smaller number of posters per unit time, along with a larger share posts from regular posters.
It wouldn't be surprising, given that /news/ isn't one of the faster boards.

>>105604
>anyone who disagrees with me is a shill
what fucking planet do you live on
are yo uso used to the hugbox of /pol/ that any opinion counter to yours must be shilling?

Mexico should take one for the team and blow up its own economy if that inflicts some job casualties on US

>>105617
Thats not a group. Thats just someone who has no opinion or knowledge.

>>103581
>Will it stop foreign terrorists from using Mexico as a way station into the United States?

This is the absolute most foolish gamble Mexico could play. Trump would more likely up the stakes further and intervene under the pretense of Mexico harboring terrorists and turn the place into another shithole like any number of ME countries.

>>105655
>it could be paid shilling

accord to some guy on internet the USA has paid internet troll army of around 700 000 full time cyber warfare agents paid in and outside of USA. then there are so called chills, which political activities are directed and partly paid by the agents (also called "activists") and "journalists". the whole system uses sophisticated bot and "insider com network", which distribute the orders, background information and payments between parts of the warfare networks.

>>105608
Really though, that's the heart of convincing minds through reason and rhetoric to see things your way. It's going to happen at any rate because people are stronger together as a group, even if the group as a whole doesn't espouse every single idea you believe in down t the letter.

When I talk to any friends and co-workers about politics long term, I always at some point make a point to tell them to, divorced from the groups they side with, look at the world, at society, and people as a whole and envision the ideal world they'd want humans as a whole to live in. Shape every single detail in their minds, imagine the various possibilities the effects of the things they want could lead, and when that perfect portrait is painted, think about what groups and sides one needs to support to see steps taken to arrive closer to it every day. Once the viewpoints are expanded beyond red and blue, right and left, or any number of other dualistic concepts, then you are equipped to make choices for what you believe in rather than simply play political sports, cheering for your favorite team.

>>105069
> If trump pulls out of NAFTA a salad will cost $50.

Pedro, please.

A salad won’t cost anything even remotely approaching that but a taco from Taco Bell will be $1.50 instead of $0.99 and that’s something I can easily live with.

>>105948
This would turn Mexico into a punching bag for every administration past Trump as well.

>>106041
Honestly that's probably going to happen anyway. Trump's opened the Pandora's Box and immigration is going to be a huge part of anybody's platform going forward from now on, even more than it has been in past elections.

>>103929
Start doing heavy trade deals with china. Which is one of the big problem that alot seem to miss. It'll be the fuckin Philippines except it will be on our front lawn

>>105948
And flood America with refugees from the South

>>105959
>hat's the heart of convincing minds
Because humans are generally emotional monkeys seeking only to reinforce their views.

A person who has devoted themselves to Intellectual honesty is exceedingly rare.

Meme responsibly.