De TLCAN a USMCA: Dos es compañía, tres es una multitud
| Autor | Bradly J. Condon |
| Cargo | Profesor de la Cátedra OMC |
| Páginas | 30-48 |
Latin American Journal of Trade Policy 2 (2018) – ISSN 079-9668 – Universidad d e Chile
30
From NAFTA to USMCA: Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd
Bradly J. Condon*
Abstract
The renegotiation of NAFTA was surrounded by a dramatic atmosphere, just as Canadian Minister of
Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland predicted. The negotiations took place against a backdrop of unilateral
trade measures, President Trump’s mercantilist approach to trade policy, and the United States’ specified
preference for bilateral trade deals. This article argues that, for the most part, economic, political and
cultural relations in the NAFTA countries are bilateral in nature, but with important trilateral production
chains in specific sectors, most notably in the automotive sector. Beyond these trilateral sectors, the
relationship between Canada and Mexico plays a relatively minor role. However, replacing NAFTA with
bilateral agreements would have placed Canada and Mexico at a disadvantage, relative to the United
States, in terms of attracting foreign direct investment. Nevertheless, Canadian and Mexican interests do
not always coincide, nor do their negotiating positions. For example, Mexico was willing to give up
Chapter 19 dispute settlement for trade remedies, whereas Canada insisted on keeping it in place. In end,
USMCA Chapter 10 preserves this dispute settlement mechanism for all three parties. Canada was willing
to give up NAFTA Chapter 11 on foreign investment disputes, whereas Mexico accepted a modified
version. The result is a trilateral agreement with significant bilateral elements, as well as global elements
that will serve as a possible model in future megaregional and multilateral negotiations.
Keywords: USMCA, NAFTA, negotiations, United States, Mexico, Canada, renegotiations.
Resumen
La renegociación del TLCAN estuvo rodeada por una atmósfera dramática, tal como lo predijo la Ministra
de Asuntos Exteriores de Canadá, Chrystia Freeland. Las negociaciones tuvieron lugar en un contexto de
medidas comerciales unilaterales, el enfoque mercantilista del presidente Trump hacia la política
comercial, y la preferencia especificada de los Estados Unidos por los acuerdos comerciales bilaterales.
Este artículo sostiene que, en su mayor parte, las relaciones económicas, políticas y culturales en los países
del TLCAN son de naturaleza bilateral, pero con importantes cadenas de producción trilateral en sectores
específicos, especialmente en el sector automotriz. Más allá de estos sectores trilaterales, la relación entre
Canadá y México juega un papel relativamente menor. Sin embargo, reemplazar el TLCAN con acuerdos
bilaterales habría colocado a Canadá y México en desventaja, en relación con los Estados Unidos, en
términos de atraer inversión extranjera directa. Sin embargo, los intereses canadienses y mexicanos no
siempre coinciden, ni tampoco sus posiciones al negociar. Por ejemplo, México estaba dispuesto a
renunciar al Capítulo 19 de solución de controversias para diferencias comerciales, mientras que Canadá
insistió en mantenerlo en su lugar. Finalmente, el Capítulo 10 de la USMCA preserva este mecanismo de
solución de controversias para las tres partes. Canadá estaba dispuesto a renunciar al Capítulo 11 del
TLCAN sobre disputas de inversiones extranjeras, mientras que México aceptó una versión modificada.
El resultado es un acuerdo trilateral con elementos bilaterales significativos, así como elementos globales
que servirán como un posible modelo en futuras negociaciones megaregionales y multilaterales.
Palabras claves: USMCA, TLCAN, negociaciones, Estados Unidos, México, Canadá, renegociaciones.
* WTO Chair Professor, Department of Law, ITAM, Rio Hondo No 1, Mexico City 01080, Mexico. The opinions expressed in
this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not represent the views of the WTO. Email: bcondon@gmail.com.
Received: October, 8th 2018; accepted: November 7th 2018.
Bradly J. Condon
From NAFTA to USMCA: Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd
31
Introduction
Twenty-five years after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed, the regional
relationship consists of two bilateral interactions on two very different borders, with the exception of
those sectors in which supply chains have become integrated on a trilateral basis and beyond. Initially,
Mexico proposed a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States, which is what Canada
already had. It was Canada that proposed a trilateral FTA, in order to avoid the possibility of Mexico
getting a better deal, and to avoid a hub-and-spoke pattern of investment, with the United States as the
hub. Inspired by this hub-and-spoke concept, Mexico went on to sign several FTAs and investment
agreements, in order to make Mexico the center of a hub-and-spoke network. The strategy has met with
some success, with Mexico serving as a manufacturing platform for European and Asian manufacturers
in North America. It appeared that the Trump administration wanted to adopt a hub-and-spoke model
for itself, by replacing NAFTA with bilateral trade agreements. However, that would have disrupted
regional supply chains, most notably in the automotive sector, and reduced jobs and competitiveness in
North American manufacturers.
On 18 May 2017, pursuant to the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act (TPA), the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) notified Congress of its intention to initiate negotiations with Canada and Mexico
to modernize NAFTA. On 31 August 2018, President Trump notified Congress of his intent “to enter
into a trade agreement with Mexico—and with Canada if it is willing, in a timely manner”. Arguably, the
2017 notification does not cover a bilateral trade agreement with Mexico, which would not meet the TPA
requirements. The Democrats, who won control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term
elections in November 2018, could have used this as a reason to reject a bilateral agreement with Mexico.
Moreover, even many Republicans insisted that any new agreement must include Canada, and the
Republicans maintained control of the Senate in the mid-term elections in November 2018.
The result is a trilateral agreement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). However,
the USMCA has more bilateral elements than the original NAFTA, which adapt the agreement to the
primarily bilateral nature of the relationship between the three countries. This article will approach the
new agreement from this perspective. It is organized as follows. Part II examines the bilateral nature of
relationships among the NAFTA countries, in an historical, political and economic context. Part III
focuses on the automotive sector as the best example of trilateral production chains and it examines the
new rules for this sector in the USMCA. Part IV examines the new dispute settlement mechanisms in the
USMCA.
It is worth noting that some reforms are neither bilateral nor trilateral, but rather global in nature, and
will serve as a model for future megaregional and multilateral trade negotiations. A notable example is
big data, where the USMCA makes it virtually impossible to restrict data flows across borders. Another
example is pharmaceuticals, such as biologics, for which the USMCA expands intellectual property rights
protection.
The USMCA adds to the spaghetti bowl of regional trade agreements involving the USMCA parties, most
notably the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (the
Trans-Pacific Partnership minus the United States), the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and
Trade Agreement (CETA), the Mexico-EU Free Trade Agreement, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba