Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
The U.S.-Mexico Sugar Deal Signals Good Intentions
U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Mexican Minister of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal announced a preliminary agreement to avoid escalating a sugar trade war. Mexico will alter the composition of its sugar exports to the United States, agreeing to send more raw sugar and less refined sugar under its current quota limit.
U.S.-Mexico trade relations have been known to sour at various times over the terms of U.S. imports of Mexican sugar. Last fall, the U.S. sugar industry urged the Commerce Department to renegotiate the terms of a 2014 trade agreement that sets prices and quota for U.S. imports of Mexican sugar. They claimed Mexico was not respecting the terms of the agreement.
The Department subsequently issued a finding that Mexico was subsidizing its sugar imports, allowing exporters to dump product into the United States at prices below market value. To avoid the application of additional duties, Mexico agreed to cancel some export permits and enter talks with the Commerce Department toward a new agreement.
Meanwhile, both industries engaged in an arms race. U.S. industry threatened that American refiners would seek substitutes for Mexican sugar. Mexico began to prepare retaliatory barriers to U.S. exports of high fructose corn syrup.
After Commerce Secretary Ross twice extended the deadline, the Commerce Department and Mexico’s Economy Ministry appear to have reached a new agreement. It’s doubtful that all parties are very happy. Mexico is concerned that U.S. sugar continues to wield outsized political influence to protect its prices and that American refineries will leverage the new agreement to avoid competition from Mexican-produced refined sugar.
As negotiations to modernize NAFTA will get underway later this summer, observers worry that longstanding irritants such as sugar trade will take new talks off track from the get go. But the outcome, if not ideal in substance, at least signals a strong intent by both parties to find agreement. That shared intention should bode well for negotiations to expand and upgrade NAFTA.
Should NAFTA 2.0 Keep ISDS?
Perhaps the biggest loss from excluding ISDS in NAFTA 2.0 would be stepping away from the conversation to make ISDS provisions better.
The '80s Called – They Want Their Trade Policy Back
We really should put protectionism in a drawer between the acid-washed denim pegged jeans and old leg warmers. It’s time to move on.
Trading Down: Protectionism Reduces Prosperity
Unilateral tariffs on Chinese products just raise prices for American families and are unlikely to produce a real change in Chinese behavior.
Don't Fall for Protectionism
“Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.” In light of these words from President Trump’s inaugural address, his decision to levy tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum is not surprising. Those words also foreshadow his Administration’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership soon after he took office. And they provide a key to his Administration’s stated objectives in renegotiating NAFTA and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. It may not have been clear to all of the many millions of people in attendance that day just how important those words were. With those words, the President announced a fundamental change to an American approach to trade that has guided our nation’s policy for almost a century – a century in which, not coincidentally, the United States became the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth. In the NAFTA negotiations and, now, with the steel and aluminum ta