AIIB developing Asian countries alternative to the IMF and World Bank

As buildings grow taller, so do the populations that inhabit them.  The everlasting need to develop our neighboring societies is at its climax.  Since the 1980s the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World bank has been responsible for offering financial and technical assistance to developing countries who accept their conditionality. The goal being that this would allow these countries to catch up to the developing world, however since then world bank President, Jim Yong Kim has stated that [they] have “found several major problems” within the World Bank. These problems stem mainly from the Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPS) that were originally intended to ensure that the money would be well implemented, however critics have argued that these conditionality actually devastate the developing countries well being further ((Edkins & Zehfuss, 2014)).

While it has been argued that the AIIB acts as a competitor to the World Bank and IMF, critics have disagreed such as US banker Robert B. Zoellick who instead sees , “the AIIB [as] offer[ing] an opportunity to strengthen the very international economic system that the US created and sustained.” Since its creation the AIIB has helped the landing of reforms that the IMF and World Bank dealt with in Asian and Oceanic countries. It has also allowed these countries to be more represented in an international institution designed to help them. Professor of law at American University Daniel Bradlow “called these countries ‘IMF consumer states’, as opposed to ‘IMF supplier states’ which dominate decision-making in the IMF.” As developing countries keep calling “for a bigger say in the institutions in terms of voting power, director seats, and staff recruitment.”  Forgetting its original goal and intent was to be a guide for these developing countries.

With the lack of aid from western institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Asian countries have arguably held incentives to create a new economic institution. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), created by China focuses on satisfying the infrastructure demands that were a result of mere oversights by western banks.  A senior executive from the Financial Times states, “Given its spectacular success with developing world-class infrastructure in record time, China has a lot of expertise in this area. Asia needs this” (Mahbubani, 2015). China, being the second largest economic entity in the world, sees this circumstance as one that could potentially expand its economy, at the same time nurturing ones who are still in development.  Not only does this pose as a potential opportunity for China and participating members of the AIIB, but also for those on a global perspective.  As history shows, western institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank dominated the infrastructure development scene, painting itself as a primary lending factor, inevitably putting a heavy amount of power in the hands of these western institutions.  With the AIIB and its 77 country membership (18 of which are from the European Union),  sequentially distributes the economic lending “say-so” amongst these western (IMF and the World Bank) and eastern establishments (AIIB)—like a Checks and Balances system.  Thomas Koenig, a government affairs analyst at the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China once said “Simply put, if you partake, you have a stake, and will likely be involved in decisions that shape the overall organization” (Dominguez, 2015). This wasn’t always the case in regards to how and when infrastructural loans were allocated.

Here’s a closer look at the AIIB and its members. (Arnott, 2015)

The Asian Monetary Fund (AMF) was a hopeful stabilizer in response to the Asian Financial Crisis, but was soon thwarted by the IMF and the United States arguing that it produced a “moral hazard” (Narine, 2003).   In reality, the western concern of economic morality is nothing but a fallacy.  According to Shaun Narine, “The IMF, dominated by the United States, wished to protect its own status as the primary international institution charged with managing the world economy” (Narine, 2003).  This example depicts the sheer extent to which the west has dominated the global economy.  Due to the AMF’s failure, China was presented with an opportunity to stand in its place. It was said that the AMF, introduced by Japan, was “a half baked idea but the AIIB created by China, has been well thought through” (Gu, 2017).  With the AIIB gaining influence on the global stage (7 other countries are expected to join by the end of 2017), the United States and its other western economic idealism is no longer going to be the primary solution towards the betterment of modern day society (Mahbubani, 2015).

George Osborne, the British chancellor on a 2013 trade visit to China. Photograph by Rex Features. (Huffington Post)

Bibliography

Arnott, C. (2015, April 7). More Than 50 Countries Sign up to be Members of AIIB. Water Economics. Retrieved October 30, 2017, from http://www.waterseconomics.com/news/2015/4/17/more-than-50-countries-sign-up-to-be-members-of-aiib

Dominguez, G. (2015, March 18). Why Europe Defies the US to Join a China-led Bank. Asia  DW.  Retrieved October 30, 2017, from http://www.dw.com/en/why-europe-defies-the-us-to-join-a-china-led-bank/a-18322773

Edkins, J., & Zehfuss, M. (2014). Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.

Treasury, HM. (2015, March 12). UK Announces Plans to Join Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. GOV. UK.com. Retrieved October 30, 2017, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-plans-to-join-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank

Mahbubani, K. (2015, March 16). Why Britain Joining China-Led Bank Is a Sign of American Decline. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved October 30, 2017, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kishore-mahbubani/britain-china-bank-america-decline_b_6877942.html

Narine, S. (2003). THE IDEA OF AN "ASIAN MONETARY FUND": THE PROBLEMS OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONALISM IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC. Asian Perspective, 27(2), 65-103. Retrieved October 20, 2017 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42704410

Schlief, R., & Ryan Schlief is executive director of the International Accountability Project. (2015, March 09). World Bank president admits resettlement failures: 'What we found causes me deep concern'. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/09/world-bank-president-jim-yong-kim-resettlement-land-rights

EU Involvement in Libyan Civil War

What happened?

February Revolution/Libyan Civil War (February-October 2011)

February 15, 2011 marks the beginning of the Libyan Civil War. On this day in 2011, rallies broke out in Benghazi to protest the arrest of a human rights lawyer, a call for the resignation of dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, and the release of political prisoners. In order to quell the disturbances caused by the protests, Libyan security forces were deployed and used rubber bullets and water cannons to disperse the crowds. Initial efforts to control the crowds failed so the government resorted to more violent means. The government decided to use “lethal force” and deployed “tanks and artillery and from the air with warplanes and helicopter gunships” as well as restricting “communications, blocking the Internet and interrupting telephone service throughout the country (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.) . The use of violence by the government did not go over well with the international community. “Foreign leaders and human rights organizations” condemned the Libyan government’s actions (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). Gaddafi responded by denying “having used force against protesters” but “repeatedly vowed to use violence to remain in power”(Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). Eventually, protesters with the help of military defectors were able to acquire weapons and form their own militarized group and later on proclaim themselves as the “sole representative of Libya” called the National Transitional Council (NTC). The NTC gains on Gaddafi's forces and takes control of Tripoli, that were under pro-regime forces for months. Ultimately, the United Nations General Assembly “votes to recognize the TNC as the representative of the Libyan people in the UN” and to “lift some of the sanctions imposed on Libya” (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). This gives the TNC the momentum they need to finally topple Gaddafi's regime. On October 20, 2011, rebels forces manage to capture and kill Gaddafi and UN Security Council pulls a plug on all military operations as well as lifting all sanctions previously placed during Gaddafi’s regime.

"Protesters at a rally in Banghāzī in March 2011 carrying the Libyan flag that was used from 1951 to 1969. The flag was adopted by the rebels in 2011" (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Second Libyan Civil War (2014-present)

Unfortunately, the turmoil did not end with the death of Gaddafi and the end of his reign. Competing militias are fighting for control of different parts of the country. In August 2014, Islamic militias and their allies Libya Dawn, took control of the Tripoli National Airport and later took control of the capitol from the nationalists. This resulted in the forming of two different governments inside the country, one of which is in Tripoli, and the other in the eastern part of the country, centralized in Tobruk. This turned from small fighting to an all out war in June of 2014 when Islamists lost parliamentary elections. Rather than acknowledging the result, they said that it was unconstitutional, saying that parliament was monopolized by Gaddafi supporters. To add on to the internal struggle, outside forces also had a hand in the outcome of the conflict. The Islamists are receiving aid from other countries in the Middle East like Egypt, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia (Tharoor & Taylor, 2014). Diplomats are fearing a spread of revolution to other countries in the region and the potential destruction of Libya as a country (Stephen 2014).This conflict has continued until today and has come to encompass a variety of other actors from all around the international community.

EU Actions

Intervention by the EU was during the war when Gaddafi was alive through the use of foreign policy. The foreign policies that Libya had set forth were seen as weak especially by more powerful countries. But the weak policies were seen as the beginning of the gaining of foreign expertise of the maintenance as development of oil infrastructure and attention from foreign investments. Both of which would only benefited the country. When the EU were certain weapons of mass destruction was not a target towards them, Libyans grew more secure with protection from the EU. The opening of an EU office in Benghazi by Vice President of the Commission of the EU commission, Catherine Ashton, once again emphasized the protection the EU had towards Libya. The purpose of the commission is to propose new laws, manage and maintains funding in the EU, enforces laws, and international representation. The commission wished to provide aid towards Libya and protection for Europeans. The EU wishes to continue to support Libya today by help aiding in their necessities such as migration, health, and education.

Analysis of EU Involvement

Who is involved and Why? 

The EU originally got involved so that they could organize an undivided government that was ruled from the capitol. The primary goal was to look out for the security of the Mediterranean with all of the chaos going on. Their secondary objective was to focus on and regulate the migration and development of Libya during and after this civil war. After getting rid of Gadaffi, the EU approved of the UN. They also assisted in Tripoli’s government to stay together to reduce the number of immigrants coming into Europe.

France had an important part in this whole ordeal. They sent special forces and military advisors over there. And on top of that, they wanted the EU to send in their navy and to go to Libyan waters for a mission. 

Italy has Since 2014 had more than 400,000 migrants and refugees have crossed the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy. Additionally, the objective of the mission approved on August 2, 2017, by the Italian parliament is to assist Libyan forces in the “fight against illegal immigration and human smuggling” through reconnaissance, surveillance, and sharing intelligence. 

Add 

Migrants on a boat that they tried to take to Italy, after being detained at a Libyan Navy base in Tripoli on September 20, 2015.

  (HRW)

Effects of EU involvement 

This conflict does not only affect Libya, but also NATO countries and the Mediterranean community especially. With all of the chaos going on, more people are migrating from Arab countries to European countries. When fighting began in 2011, a great amount of migrants left Libya to go to European countries. Some describe it as the “ largest since the first Gulf War in 1990” (Seeberg, n.d.). The International Organization for Migration (IOM) states that, by November 2011, over a million people have fled Libya. However, before people started to get out of Libya, people did their best to get in. When the global economy went down the drain in 2008, the only markets that did not take too big of a hit was oil, and oil is a huge part of Libya’s economy. So people fled their homelands for Libya and other oil producing countries. When crisis eventually hit in 2011, these migrant workers then had to escape Libya and head for Europe. This means that it is not only Libyans entering Europe, but people from all over Africa and the Middle East. This problem has the EU scrambling to find solutions. There are lots of talk about these solutions, however, whether or not they actually come about is another thing (Seeberg, n.d.).

Should the EU be responsible for the aftermath since they were pushing war?

It may be best for Libya to not pick up the pieces alone. Since the EU and NATO were involved in the war in the first place, and they do hold some responsibility. It is also not entirely impossible for the EU to help either. One issue may be migration, since there is so much turmoil in these areas, many are migrating to the more peaceful European countries. This is not the first time this has happened, and with past waves of migration, leaders talked about a sort of “Marshall Plan for Africa” (Wintour 2017). The plan would be to create a “development package” (Wintour 2017) large enough to create more jobs at the homes of the people contemplating migration. These jobs would urge these people to stay at home. Although there have been talks about this, an actual project has never been developed(Wintour 2017)

Other options are available, luckily. Emmanuel Macron, President of France, thinks setting up “hot spots” (Wintour 2017) could possibly be a good idea. These hot spots would be set up in locations like Chad and Niger because refugees can apply for asylum here without having to cross any seas, which is always a danger to the refugees. Although this seems like a good idea, these countries, like EU countries, are not jumping with joy at the idea of increasing their migration numbers(Wintour 2017).

Reference

Emmott, Robin (25 May 2016). “Germany, France hold back NATO, EU ambitions in Libya”. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-nato-eu-analysis/germany-france-hold-back-nato-eu-ambitions-in-libya-idUSKCN0YG18Z 

Encyclopedia Britannica (n.d.) “Libya Revolt Of 2011”. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/Libya-Revolt-of-2011#toc300035.

Robins-Early, Nick (7 March 2015). “Was The 2011 Libya Intervention A Mistake?”. The
Huffington Post: The Worldpost. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/07/libya-intervention-daalder_n_6809756.html

Seeberg, Peter (n.d.). “EU Strategic Interests in Post-Qadhafi Libya: Perspectives for Cooperation.”Middle East Policy Council, www.mepc.org/eu-strategic-interests-post-qadhafi-libya-perspectives-cooperation.

Stephen, Chris (August 2014).”War In Libya - The Guardian Briefing”. The Guardian, Guardian News and Media. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/-sp-briefing-war-in-libya#img-4.

Tharoor, Ishaan, & Taylor, Adam (27 August 2014). Here Are The Key Players Fighting The War For Libya, All Over Again. Washington Post: World Views. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/08/27/here-are-the-key-players-fighting-the-war-for-libya-all-over-again/?utm_term=.1d085f93774d

Wintour, Patrick (1 Feb. 2017). “Libya May Allow EU Ships to Pursue People-Smugglers in Its Waters.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/nato-eu-ships-tackle-people-trafficking-libya-mediterranean-refugees-migrants.

 

The Life of a North Korean

Life as a North Korean

Tension between North Korea and the US has been rising this past year- mostly from threatening tweets between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. So far it has been a war on words. Recent news seems to be updating those in the US about how a possible nuclear war could possibly occur, but what about the 24 million ordinary people who are living their lives in North Korea? Since the famine of the 1990s, the North Korean government basically lost control of their economy. They were no longer able to function with a state socialist economy, provide rations to the people and so on. This lead people to take their livelihoods into their own hands; and they started to basically engage in survival entrepreneurialism. Civilians started to smuggle goods to and from China. From this, the rise of capitalism emerged- basically a market economy.

According to Sokeel Park, a director of research and strategy for Liberty in North Korea who works with a group that works with refugees from the North, “…the country is changing on the inside”. Park continues to mention that there is “more foreign information and media seeping into the country”. More North Koreans have access to materials like mobile phones, DVD players, computers. They are also increasingly watching South Korean movies and soap operas. Park further mentions: “We don’t have a civil society. We don’t have organized opposition. But some of the seeds for space outside of government control, some of those are starting to form. This is actually where I think a lot of the change and hope is on North Korea today”. However, Park’s points should not undermine the horrible living conditions North Koreans must endure day-to-day because of their totalitarian regime. Many North Koreans must fleet from their country in order to survive from poverty, starvation, and receive more human rights. Kim Jung Un describes his country to have, “the most advantageous human rights system”. He wants to create this picture to the public that North Korea allows it’s citizens to have a civilized living standard with a creative working life. If this was so, then why do thousands of North Koreans try to escape each year? A North Korean’s reality is that they face suffering from lack of food, expression, right to life, and discrimination.

    

Figure 2: A North Korean prison policewoman stands guard behind fences at a jail on the banks of Yalu River Reuters

We often hear about the politics behind North Korea’s nuclear weapon program through the media and global news, along with Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump’s action to create greater tension between the United States and North Korea. This raises the question, “What is life like from a North Korean perspective?” Hyeonseo Lee shares her story and discusses how she was brainwashed into thinking that North Korea was the best county in the world. Up until she was 14, she was taught to believe that Kim Jong Un was the greatest leader in the world and that she must constantly hold great pride in her identity as a North Korean. She was never taught to question nor have basic human rights such as creative expression, internet access, etc. As the famine in the 90s occurred, she soon realized that people in North Korea were suffering, including parts of her family who died from starvation. She then began to seek refuge in China with her distant family away from her intimate family as age 14. She learned through experience that being a North Korean refugee was dangerous because she was considered an illegal migrant in China. If she was identity was revealed as a North Korean, then she would face penalty such was imprison or execution. Hyeonseo’s story reveals that people who report about the life of a North Korean is flawed from what they actually face in real life. North Koreans face constant propaganda and are conditioned to believe that their country is leading as an example to the rest in the world as a socialist state with national self-reliance and state-run enterprises.

Figure 1: Hyeonseo Lee is a North Korean who successfully escaped the country

                                    

Terrorism

Six republican senators and six democratic senators have teamed up to send a letter to the state department regarding the addition of North Korea to the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The Warambier family are accusing North Korea’s authoritarian government of kidnapping and torturing their son. The family is claiming that North Korea plays the victim, when in reality they are terrorists. The family met with lawmakers at capitol hill to discuss the issue that is currently being reviewed and processed. The secretary of State must determine that North Korea’s government has repeatedly provided support for international terrorism in order for the claim to go through. The Warambier’s son  returned to the U.S this summer while in a coma. He faced 17 years of imprisonment in North Korea. He died a few days after his return due to lack of blood and oxygen in the brain.

This issue is related to the subject of torture and terrorism that we have been learning in class. North Korea has been known for its terrorism and is currently being reviewed to be known officially as a State sponsor of Terrorism. The use of illegitimate violence is the issue that ties North Korea to global politics. The North Korean prisoner of the issue above, was released while facing the brink of death. Illegitimate violence is used to wear down an opponent’s moral resolve and inflict political change. As we can see,North Korea definitely got a severe response from its prisoner. The issue of terrorism is important for global politics because innocent lives are at the risk of danger and casualties. Global politics usually tries to aim for the greater good of all. Terrorism is the opposite of this ideology. Many tragic event have occurred due to the acts of illegitimate violence around the globe.

Media:

Trump and Kim could be facing a start of a war based off social media. Trump referred to Kim as the “little rocket man” and many other insults. These threats could lead to potential turmoil. Kim actually did respond to some of Trump’s tweets, he referred to him as a dotard. In this generation, a tweet can start a political debate or maybe even lead to war.

                                    

Figure 3: Sack cartoon: Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un

We studied the effects of media in class and I felt that Trump uses a lot of his social media to get his political statements across the globe. There have been many controversial tweets and political debates regarding his use of twitter. As we learned in class, the use of media is used to spread the word of current issues and that is Trump’s main reason as to why he creates many political tweets.

Global politics in this generation, is important in the media and even social media. Many people start political debates through twitter and facebook. Media is an important resource for information and for political involvement. The Media is important for global politics because it allows for citizens to become aware of unknown issues. The media is a huge improvement for global politics because it sheds light on unknown issues to people who aren’t really kept up to date in politics.

Conclusion

North Korea's nuclear weapons should be a major concern to everyone as it can potentially affect everyone in the world. Nuclear weapons create both immediate and overtime effects that are not easily repairable. When a country as trigger-happy as North Korea has access to weapons of mass destruction, everyone should be paying attention. North Korea's nukes can impact several different countries. If they are to actually use one of their small country destroying weapons, this can lead to evacuations of certain areas, famines, radioactive diseases, and a country that needs help from major world powers. In our current global politics, a country being nuked will be several steps taken backward in the international globe of becoming a better world.

North Korea is a country that is hard for people not from the country to relate to, and that has people that aren't able to relate to the world outside North Korea. Due to the development of North Korea in recent centuries, it has created a disconnect between its people and the rest of the world. Citizens get their information directly from the government, and all the media they receive is filtered by the government. This has made it hard to relate to and understand  North Korea's citizens, making it impossible to come  agreement with the immature leadership of North Korea.

Works Cited

1. BBC. (2017, August 10). North Korea's nuclear programme: How advanced is it? Retrieved October 30, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699

2. Human Rights Watch. (2017, January 12). North Korea. Retrieved October 30, 2017, from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/north-korea

3. Samuelson, K. (2017, September 22). All the Times Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump Swapped Insults. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http://time.com/4953283/kim-jong-un-donald-trump-insults/

4. Westcott, B. (2017, September 26). Could North Korean, US threats of destruction cause an accidental war? Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/asia/north-korea-us-accidental-war/index.html

5. Everyday Life In North Korea. (2017, September 09). Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/2017/09/09/549690182/everyday-life-in-north-korea

6. T. (2013, March 20). My escape from North Korea | Hyeonseo Lee. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdxPCeWw75k

7. Park, M. (2014, September 15). North Korea: Human rights in DPRK is 'superior system'. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/15/world/asia/north-korea-human-rights-report/index.html

8. Robinson, M. (2017, August 10). A photographer captured these dismal photos of life in North Korea on his phone. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-of-life-in-north-korea-2017-8/#there-are-nearly-no-fat-people-in-north-korea-everyone-looks-very-thin-chu-said-6

9. Secret State: A journey into the heart of North Korea. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/09/asia/north-korea-secret-state/

10. Greenwood, M. (2017, October 05). Senators ask State to designate North Korea a state sponsor of terrorism. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/354034-senators-ask-state-dept-to-designate-north-korea-state-sponsor-of-terrorism

11. Park, M. (2014, February 17). North Korea: 'We were forced to eat grass and soil'. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/world/asia/north-korea-un-report/

Donald Trump's Tweets, and NAFTA

In today's complex and often-unstable global political environment, there are many elements that have weight, possessing the potential to act as a stimulus for shift in relations -- the economy is arguably the prominent of these. Since 1994, and creations of NAFTA, Mexico and the United States of America have been more than ever interwoven with one another, a relationship that, while often downplayed, is vital for the success of both nations. As explained by Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican Ambassador to the United States, over the past two decades the two nations have "built a strategic and forward-looking partnership predicated on shared responsibility and on the premise that if one nation succeeded, the other one world, too" - a relationship founded and maintained on the basis of flourishing international trade.

While NAFTA has seen, on paper, benefits across the board for both the USA and Mexico (as well as Canada), there have been those throughout both nations that have suffered - a demographic in the United States that, throughout the 2016 United States Presidential Election, has been seen to have the ability to cause political swing. While newly elected President Donald Trump worked his campaign by touching on many ideas and political ideologies, some of the most prominent, and most different from previous US policy, were his opinions on NAFTA, and his draw to those whom had suffered as a result (or perceived result). However, while his views and opinions on NAFTA are not utterly unique, nor in the right circumstances detrimental to a flourishing relationship between the two nations, it is the manner in which President Trump is approaching negotiations that is. While President Trump has long used Twitter as a means to convey his thoughts, beliefs and general rhetoric, in the more recent future he has done so while representing the United States as a whole. In saying this, time and time again he has used social media to post unofficial personal statements on international political negotiations, and, as expected, there has been consequences. While these consequences are not always easily identifiable to exact measures (as there are many casual factors in the multifaceted Mexican-USA international relationship), posts such as that posted on August 27th, 2017 (shown above), "We are in the NAFTA (worst trade deal ever made) renegotiation process with Mexico & Canada.Both being very difficult,may have to terminate?", are highly detrimental to both short term discussions, and a fraying long-term relationship.

I. NAFTA Importance

NAFTA created the world's largest free trade agreement of 450 million people. It is an economic system worth about $20 trillion, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). NAFTA is essential in the way it connects the economies of the United States ($18.5 trillion), Mexico ($2 trillion), and Canada ($1.7 trillion). Since 1993, trade between these three countries increased significantly, from $297 billion to $1.15 trillion. NAFTA stimulates economic growth, earnings, jobs, and decreases consumer prices in all three nations. This agreement also significantly lowers tariffs. In the US specifically, it lessens the risk of inflation and allows the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low.

NAFTA increased US economic growth by .5% every year. The sectors that benefited the most were agriculture and automobiles. US agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada grew by 156%, and exports to the rest of the world were 65%. Farm exports to Mecico and Canada were greater than exports to the next six largest markets combined, NAFTA also increases ranch exports because it eliminates large Mexican tariffs. Mexico, is the top export destination for US meats, grains, produce, and corn sweeteners. It is also, the largest export destination for oil and soy products.

NAFTA created over five million new US jobs. US producers created more than 800,000 jobs solely between 1993 and 1997. Since NAFTA was created, US foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico and Canada has doubled. The FDI reached $452 billion by 2012, which boosted profits for US businesses by giving them more opportunities to develop, and markets to sell to.

II. Current Relations Between United States and Mexico

The current relationship between the United States is strained, both in ideal and vision, but also on economic terms. The United States and Mexico have had a profound and complex relationship in the past, and heavily rely on each other following the enactment of NAFTA. The current presidential administration is at a standstill and pivotal point for the future of relations between the United States and Mexico. While President Trump uses the current U.S. Trade deficit, which is 502 billion dollars, to justify his "America First" rhetoric, the reality is Mexico represents a mere 8% of the total trade deficit. In addition, the United States actually has a larger trade deficit with Japan, Germany, and China, with respective deficits of 69 billion, 65 billion, and 347 billion respectively. Moreover, Mexico is the second largest export destination for the United States.Nevertheless, nearly 5 million jobs depend on trade with Mexico, and nearly 1.6 billion dollars a day are traded in both directions between the countries. However Donald Trump and his anti-Mexico rhetoric, which has been at the forefront has posed a significant threat to these seemingly positive economic interactions between both countries. The Mexican government is willing to renegotiate the NAFTA treaty, as long as there is communication, equal partnership, and willingness to negotiate other agreements between the country. However, Washington, especially under the Trump Leadership is not the type of authority to compromise with its southern neighbor. The archetype built in many American minds, is that the people of Mexico are threatening, instead of equal players in thriving economic partnership. This type of fear, especially the fear that "American jobs are going to foreigners", is only fueled by a leader who taps into racist, and xenophobic attitudes to fuel his ascension to greater power. As former Mexican ambassador to the United States, Arturo Sarukhan puts it "A stark asymmetry of power will always persist between both countries". This power dynamic puts the United States in the forefront, pushing their issues such as border security, trade deficits, and drug trafficking, solely on Mexico. Trump is clearly anti-NAFTA, as he believes it takes away American jobs, and devastated state economies such as when Trump tweeted that NAFTA destroyed Ohio and how John Kasich is to blame since he voted for it. Donald Trump repeatedly has tied NAFTA, to the negative economic effects in the Rust Belt such as the loss of jobs in steel and coal. However economists can't pinpoint whether the job losses even partially influenced by NAFTA, due to economic recessions, and the increase mechanization of industries. The final winner in the trade deal according to CNN Money is the United States because automakers in particular benefit from the cheap labor.

III. Mexico's Response + Conclusion

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico has been adamant that they will not renegotiate NAFTA with the United states through "social media or any others new platform," as stated in a press release issued on August 27th of 2017. Through this press release, Mexico has set a clear precedent that they will not engage in NAFTA negotiations through public, social media platforms. However, Mexico's foreign minister, Luis Videgaray, has dismissed the United States President Donald Trump's tweets. Videgaray even told a local Mexican news station that President Trump was "negotiating in his own particular style," seeming to undermine Trump's tweets as a means of obtaining public attention rather than a true political statement. In a meeting with Reuters on September 15th of 2017, Videgaray stated that, "Mexico is much bigger than NAFTA," as nearly half of Mexico's trade with the United States is regulated through other channels, such as the World Trade Organization. Mexico itself has also become increasingly less reliant on the United States for trade, insteading forging relationships with nations within the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Singapore, and Israel. Videgaray has hinted that if NAFTA negotiations were to ever be rendered obsolete, it would not necessarily be detrimental to Mexico's economy, as Mexico has placed itself in a position where they could placing higher tariffs on United States' products.

The former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, has echoed the sentiments of Mexico's current foreign minister, as Fox has claimed that, "there are a lot of great friends around the world, like China, like Japan... like Latin America, where Mexico can do business." The current President of Mexico, Enrique Pena Nieto, has taken a more diplomatic approach to negotiations with President Trump than Fox's statements. On January 27th of 2017 in a phone call between President Nieto and President Trump, President Nieto stated that he, "would insist very specifically... for [Mexico and the United States] to find a route towards the dialogue to find a balance in our trade." On October 12th of 2017, Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, and President Nieto discussed ways in which NAFTA can be renegotiated in a manner that is equally beneficial for all nations involved (Canada, Mexico, and the United States).

Extra: How (And Why) Donald Trump Tweets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geEVwslL-YY

Works Cit

Amadeo, K. (2017, July 07). Fast Facts About the World's Largest Trade Agreement.

Retrieved October 30, 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/facts-about-nafta-statistics-and-accomplishments-3306280

Amadeo, K. (2017, April 11). Why Can't America Just Make Everything It Needs?

Retrieved October 30, 2017, from

https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264

Amadeo, K. (2017, July 02). How the US Trade Deficit Hurts the Economy.

Retrieved October 30, 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-partners-3306276

Cattan, N., & Wingrove, J. (2017, October 13). Trudeau and Pena Nieto Pledge Trade Unity as Trump Threatens Nafta. Retrieved October 25, 2017, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-13/pena-nieto-trudeau-pledge-trade-unity-as-trump-threatens-nafta

Cohn, N. (2016, November 09). Why Trump Won: Working-Class Whites. Retrieved October 30, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0

Daniel, F. J., & Barrera, A. (2017, September 15). Mexico-U.S. trade would survive any NAFTA rupture: Mexico foreign minister. Retrieved October 25, 2017, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mexico-videgaray/mexico-u-s-trade-would-survive-any-nafta-rupture-mexico-foreign-minister-idUSKCN1BQ2ZO

Exteriores, Secretaría de Relaciones. “Press Release.” Gob.mx,

www.gob.mx/sre/prensa/press-release-123187.

Gillespie, P. (2016, November 15). NAFTA: What it is, and why Trump hates it.

Retrieved October 30, 2017, from http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news/economy/trump-what-is-nafta/index.html

Gonzalez, S. (n.d.). Vicente Fox: Withdrawing From NAFTA Will Hurt the U.S., Not Mexico.        Retrieved October 25, 2017, from      http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/vicente-fox-us-will-lose-if-nafta-scuttled.html

Government of Canada, Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada, Deputy Minister of

Foreign Affairs, Assistant Deputy Minister Public Affairs, Corporate Communications,

E-Communications. “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - Fast Facts.” GAC, 8 June 2017, www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/fta-ale/facts.aspx?lang=eng.

Ita. “The North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA].” Trade.gov - FTA--NAFTA Main,

International Trade Administration, 25 Aug. 2015,

www.trade.gov/mas/ian/tradeagreements/fta/tg_ian_002425.asp.

McBride, James, and Mohammed Aly Sergie. “NAFTA's Economic Impact.” Council on Foreign

Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 Oct. 2017, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact.

McDonnell, P. J. (2017, August 31). Mexico signals tougher stance on NAFTA, may pull out of talks if Trump moves to scrap deal. Retrieved October 25, 2017, from http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-nafta-20170831-story.html

Melitz, Marc. “Driving Home the Importance of NAFTA.” The Econofact Network, 6 July 2017, scholar.harvard.edu/melitz/publications/driving-home-importance-nafta.

Partlow, J. (2017, August 23). Analysis | Mexico shrugs off Trump threats to scrap NAFTA.  Retrieved October 25, 2017, from     https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/23/mexico-shrugs-off-trump-threats-to-scrap-nafta/?utm_term=.6e4a7eed8cf0

Sarukhan, A. (2017, January 31). The U.S.-Mexico relationship is dangerously on the edge. Retrieved October 30, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/01/31/the-u-s-mexico-relationship-is-dangerously-on-the-edge/?utm_term=.6a88f23bdb97

'This deal will make me look terrible': Full transcripts of Trump's calls with Mexico and Australia. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/australia-mexico-transcripts/?utm_term=.b2f28db160fc

Tillett, E. (2017, August 28). Mexico responds to Trump's tweets on border wall, NAFTA. Retrieved October 25, 2017, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-responds-to-trumps-tweets-on-border-wall-nafta/