NAFTA trade ministers to square off over hard-line US demands

Trade ministers from the United States, Canada, and Mexico wrap up a contentious round of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trade talks on Tuesday marked by aggressive U.S. demands that have left the future of the 23-year-old free trade pact in doubt.
The proposals to drastically reshape NAFTA to help shrink U.S. trade deficits have cast a pall over the modernization talks, leaving some participants and analysts wondering how the NAFTA partners can avoid an impasse.
The U.S. demands, previously identified as red lines by its neighbors, include forcing renegotiations every five years, reserving the lion's share of automotive manufacturing for the United States and making it easier to pursue import barriers against some Canadian and Mexican goods.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo and Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland are scheduled to meet and take stock of the negotiations before issuing statements at a joint event at 3 p.m. (1900 GMT). They later plan to separately brief media.
Lighthizer has made no apologies about his hard negotiating line, which he has said reflects U.S. President Donald Trump's desire to claw back lost manufacturing jobs and shrink U.S. goods trade deficits amounting to $64 billion with Mexico and $11 billion with Canada last year.
Trump has continued his attacks on NAFTA throughout the talks launched in August, repeating his threats to terminate the pact if Mexico and Canada won't agree to changes.
U.S. negotiators opened a new front over the weekend with a proposal that Canada dismantle its system of protections for the dairy and poultry sectors, a move that Ottawa will reject, a source briefed on the matter said on Monday.
U.S. opposition to NAFTA's dispute resolution mechanisms, plans to restrict outside access to government contracts and attacks on Canadian dairy and softwood lumber producers have further stoked the grim mood among trade officials.
While Mexican and Canadian officials have expressed dismay at the U.S. proposals, they have publicly taken a less confrontational stance, with three more negotiating rounds scheduled through December.
"This is what negotiations are like," Vanessa Rubio, Mexico's deputy finance minister, said on Saturday.
"There are sectors where you get to a deal quicker, and in other sectors where you don't. But let's just say we're in the normal process of a free trade negotiation."
Canadian and Mexican officials are loosely allied with U.S. industry, farm and services lobbying groups who are opposed to the Trump proposals and stepping up their efforts to persuade administration officials to ease them.
Financial markets have taken notice of the acrimony over the negotiating table. By Monday, Mexico's peso hit a near five-month low with fears growing about the future of the deal underpinning $1.2 trillion in annual trade between the three countries.
Mexico sends nearly 80 percent of its exports to the United States.
My Response
Audience:

The Article is written for Canadians over the age of voting and tax payers or have some investment into government decisions. Seeing as the article deals specifically with how trade relations could affect Canada’s economy. The audience is likely anyone who would like to be aware of the potential increase to cost of living.
Author Bias:
CNBC is biased in favour of Canada and against the United States, in particular the idea that Trump may get rid of NAFTA. The Article clearly states that this is a bad idea, but is much more focused on delivering statistics to prove his points. CNBC is likely biased in support of Canada regarding the recent talks to diminish the effects of NAFTA.
Reader Bias: 

 Personally, as a Canadian citizen, I came into this article understanding a lot of the background information and I am slightly biased in favour of the Canadian government who is fighting against these edits to NAFTA. I have been a long time supporter of NAFTA and see its benefits for all of North America.

Overall Bias:

 The article is very biased against the United States decision and is choosing to support Canada but also Mexico. The article is biased in support of easy trade and in support of having diplomatic relationships with other countries. The article is very in favour of NAFTA and seems to believe that any reduction to NAFTA would be an abjuration to the entire continent.

 Opinion:

 I can clearly see how this topic is extremely confusing and hard to grasp. I believe (and I cannot remember where) I was reading an article about Bombardier and Boeing, Bombardier is able to sell there planes for a fraction of the price because they are subsidized by the Canadian government. While on teh surface this seems unfair, it is important to understand that these two airplane manufacturers have very different business demographics, despite this the issue still remains. This is fairly unfair, however I do not believe that the solution is to end or even decrease NAFTA, because it is so beneficial to all of North America. Disbanding NAFTA has the potential of the United States losing Canada (their largest trade partner) and Mexico (a country nearly completely dependent on the USA). This could be catastrophic to the United States and their trade growth. 

Works Cited

Cnbc. “NAFTA Trade Ministers to Square off over Hard-Line US Demands.” CNBC, CNBC, 17 Oct. 2017, www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/nafta-trade-ministers-to-square-off-over-hard-line-us-demands.html.

Comments

  1. Sanny Yang18 October 2017 at 04:05

    I think David did a great job on narrowing down and identifying the intended audience of this article. I also agree that the writer of this article is biased against the United States and one can see this in the tone of the overall passage. Also, if you look at diction, you can see how the writer used words such as "aggressive" and "demands" to describe the US in the NAFTA trade talks. This would give the readers a negative outlook on the US in this situation. Furthermore, many, if not all, information presented in the article points out how the United States is causing economic problems and hardships for Mexico and Canada with their demands. But the slants observed in this article can be explained by the bias of the CNBC as it is biased for Canadians and against the US as David stated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown19 October 2017 at 06:00

    I agree with Sanny and David on the bias of the article. It is definitely biased towards Canada and Mexico, form the little the mentioned about Mexico, and definitely against the United States. I also agree with David’s interpretation of the intended audience being for mainly Canadian who have some investment ideas of the government. I think it is definitely hard for someone who doesn’t know what is going on with NAFTA and why it is so important to Canada and other countries that support the US or are supported by the US, like Mexico. I know nothing about the NAFTA agreement but it sounds like it would definitely be detrimental to many countries if the US decides to end the agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lindsey Overturf19 October 2017 at 06:40

    David did really well in defining the audience and identifying specific biases. Not knowing the situation very well and all that is involved I find it difficult to see how much is the article author's bias in what truly would best with NAFTA and the impact it will have on North America and the world. I agree with both David and Sanny in how the article paints United States in general and Donald Trump more specifically in a negative light. Using words about Trump "attacking" (regardless of how often that is his personal style) does definitely turn the audience towards Canada's side if we view them as the underdog when America is being unfair and unreasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 07:03

    In my opinion, I think that NAFTA is a very good agreement between Mexico, Canada and the USA. I think that Mexico can't let this agreement fall from their hands. According to NY Times, The issue is the importance of trade deficits. Americans buy more goods and services from Mexico than Mexicans buy from the United States. This means that Mexico is somehow taking advantage of the United States, and this is what has Donald Trump angry. The trade with Canada has been more balance than Mexico's, I agree with David, saying that this ending this could be catastrophic for the North American growth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown23 October 2017 at 03:35

      Yes, I would agree with your assessment 100%. NAFTA creates trade relations which are convenient between all of North America and keeps the continent content in their trade relations. Another unfolding I recently read which goes along with this is how Bombardier is moving productions to America (allying with Airbus) just to avoid this entire debacle. This shows that no matter how much we try and crack down there will always be loopholes for others to find.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 07:05

    In my opinion, I completely agree with David´s analysis and opinion on the US demand against NAFTA. He explained the conflict and described the effects it would have on society if the actual problem would solve in favor of the U.S president, Donald Trump. If the NAFTA organization cease to exist, meaning that the U.S decides to end the agreement, it would cause world wide problems regarding economy mainly in Mexico. Which it´s economy is detrimental to the U.S economy. He expressed his based both ways, personal and overall, which gives you a clearer view of the situation and helps the reader understand the current issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 07:13

    This article does makes sense and this analysis totally explains the article the correct way. It does looks like the one who wrote this understood to a 100% this article and can talk about it like it was his own life. This is about Canada and the US, including Trump and all of his plans of taking down NAFTA. The bias is all leading to the side of Canada because what Trump is doing is wrong and necessary, as already mentioned before, everything is perfectly explained in this analysis. We agree with the first commentator, because we are totally on the Canadian side. The article is just giving facts and statin information, there is no side included.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 07:23

    The U.S., Canada and Mexico had a trade talk on Tuesday, the U.S. stated that they have put at risk the 23 year old free trade (NAFTA). The U.S presidente Donald Trump has reduced trade deficit amounting with Mexico and Canada. Trump continues attacking the NAFTA trade pact and saying that he will end the pact. The Canadian and Mexican officers are loosely allied with the U.S., industry, because all the thing Trump is doing with the U.S. pacts. Since the NAFTA trade pact at risk, Mexico's peso has hit a near five-month low with fears growing, Mexico sends approximately 80 percent of all his exports to the U.S. This article is targeting especially people from North America so they can know what is happening with the NAFTA trade pact and what could happen if the pact is broken. Our opinion is that Donald Trump is making a bad decision on putting at risk the NAFTA free trade. We are in favor of Mexico and Canada that they should keep the NAFTA free trade pact because if the NAFTA trade pact is broken Mexico and Canada can have big problems and the three economies can decrease.
    https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 07:25

    We think that David did a great job defining the audience because this is something that can affect not just Canada but also Mexico since they are both part of the NAFTA and if the US decides to change or leave, the agreement would move and update many things for the other countries that are part of the agreement. We share the same idea as David since we think that it could be catastrophic for the United States to end the NAFTA agreement, this could cause an impact on their economy and their trade growth. In the bias we completely agree with Sanny’s idea because the author of the article used words like “aggressive” describing the situation with Lightizer and his demand, we can clearly see that the author is supporting Mexico and Canada. It is very clear that the US president, Donald Trump, is influencing in the ideas of the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer which could lead to a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unknown20 October 2017 at 07:27

    In our opinion we can conclude that Donald Trump is only thinking about his own benefit and the US economy. He wants to drastically change the NAFTA in ways that won’t benefit either Mexico or Canada. Mexico’s percentage of exports to the Us is 80%, more than half, so for Mexico it would be a huge downfall in Mexico’s economy.

    The leaders of Canada, us and Mexico will meet to “take stock of the negotiations before issuing statements at a joint event at 3 p.m.”. We think that this will not benefit either canada or mexico because if the US takes down the deficit then Mexico will go down because the 80% of Mexico’s exports go to the US, so if the NAFTA stops, Mexico’s economy will fall.
    With time, we will see what the NAFTA decides to do with the help of administration officials who can think out of the box and see what’s best for the world’s economy. But we hope that the NAFTA stays the same because if not, Mexico’s and Canada’s economy will change completely.

    This news is showing the same problem but what we like is how the problem is explained as the Canada’s foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, said that Unites Sates is making an approach of “winner takes all” which means that US is taking all the benefits without checking the bad impacts that will create in the other countries.

    Lawder, D., & Graham, D. (2017, October 17). NAFTA negotiators trade barbs, indicate wide differences. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-nafta/nafta-negotiators-trade-barbs-indicate-wide-differences-idUSKBN1CM0CG

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 07:41

    We really enjoyed reading your blog, it was very well redacted and the topic was super interesting. By reading your article we were able to know that you had an idea of what was going on according with this news past and present. The article you chose was really good, our team agrees with the authors point of view.

    We agree with your opinion of making changes to NAFTA, although updating treating sometimes might be good, we believe that with changes will make a drastic (bad) change to all of North America. There will be consequences for all the countries involved and that this is not the correct solution for this problem. If this treaty is terminated then many people’s life will be affected.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 09:12

    In our opinion the NAFTA treaty shouldn't be cancelled because it will affect directly the Mexican economy because the 80% of Mexican exports go to United States of America. We understand that every country wants the best for them as Vanessa Rubio said "This is what negotiations are like". We also understand that USA wants to remove their trade deficit, but in this case this will not help United States neither México nor Canada. The destruction of this trade will affect a lot of companies that depend in trade between these countries.One example will be the motor vehicle parts that México exports to USA and if the NAFTA is cancelled this will affect the industry. In conclusion we think it is a bad idea to cancel the NAFTA because it will affect all of their members.

    Editorials, T. R. (2017, October 20). Getting rid of NAFTA would be a disaster (Editorial). Retrieved October 20, 2017, from http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/10/getting_rid_of_nafta_would_be.html

    -Niños Héroes

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 10:58

    I think that the NAFTA agreement should not be terminated. Countries like mexico highly depend in the United States, it could really affect the economy. Also, I believe that this treaty has been along for a long time, and that it never really had any roblems until de Trump administration, which until now has been complete caos and disaster for the american people. I hope that the united states gets to reconsider wanting to destroy the agreement aunless all demands are made, because it eill largeley affect the USA, Mexico and Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 11:06

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 11:07

    I enjoyed reading the whole news story and all of your opinions, but i need to agree with David's and Vannesa's opinion and point of view. Since you guys mentioned that the US deciding to leave NAFTA could cause a big mess to the three countries; Canada, US and Mexico, because this would affect many companies in the three countries it isn't a win-win situation as Javier mentioned. All of this said, the US leaving NAFTA for its 'trade deficit' will have a worse effect than its own actual deficit.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 11:08

    In my opinion I really like your blog. It was really well and I was really entertained while reading it. In my point of view the author opinion was really good and I am in favor. I agree we need to have more relations with other countries. I also noticed that Mexico may be affected since it is in NAFTA. I am not in favor of pulling down NAFTA because we should have more relations between countries.
    RPT-NAFTA trade ministers to square off over hard-line U.S. demands. (2017, October 17). Retrieved October 20, 2017, from https://in.reuters.com/article/trade-nafta/rpt-nafta-trade-ministers-to-square-off-over-hard-line-u-s-demands-idINL4N1MS1N6

    ReplyDelete
  16. Unknown20 October 2017 at 11:18

    In this article the author explains really well the topic, which is about NAFTA and United States. United States want to change drastically the way NAFTA works for their own good. You can really tell what the author is writing. You can see that the author really knows what the article is about because he gives dates, for example when meetings between countries are happening. You can understand the author bias because the author explains it really well and briefly. I agree with the first commentator because the article was kind of confusing at first but the writer's response was really helpful making us as an audience understand the text better. I think NAFTA should stay without change since it benefits North American countries and it has been like that since a long time. Also I like that the article is much against the United States because of Trump’s opinion of making changes in NAFTA. I agree with the article since the CNBC is defending Canada (If they make changes it could affect Canada's trading relations and economy) and going against the United States because of the idea that Trump may get rid of NAFTA. I like how the article explains how this is a bad idea since NAFTA benefits most of North American countries.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 11:20

    In my opinion I think that this article is very interesting. Because it expresses how the USA wants to live the NAFTA. But the USA would not want to stop importing products from Mexico (Mexico exports 80% to the USA). Thats why Mexico has advantage. I think the NAFTA is a very important pact between this three countries and it should never be interrupted.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Unknown20 October 2017 at 11:24

    We thought this article was very interesting because shows a different point of view other than informing. In our opinion, we consider that the elimination of NAFTA will only cause damage instead of benefits. It would affect directly Mexico and it's economy because as Javier mentioned before 80 percent of Mexico's exports go to the USA and it will decrease the trade between two well developed countries and many companies that depend on this agreement will be affected. If NAFTA eventually goes down the tariffs will increase causing anger to the citizens and would lead them to think that the president may be violating the laws.
    You can find more information in the following website: Tencer, D. (2017, August 24). What Happens If Trump Cancels NAFTA? Retrieved October 20, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/24/what-happens-if-trump-cancels-nafta_a_23163682/


    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 12:15

    In our team’s agreement, we agree with David and we admire how he analyzed the information and mentioned each one of the important members. We would have preferred it if the article didn’t went against the U.S. but since this article was meant for Canadians and is meant to be in favor of Canada, we understand that going against the U.S. is probably what the author wanted. We believe that the article is put together in a way that the information is easy to understand and he also explains what consequences will happen to each of the members, like mentioning on how Donald Trump’s attacks on NAFTA and also his threats towards Mexico and Canada, and mentions how their response will take place. Not only that, he mentions that Mexico’s exports mainly go to the US and if they decide to end the pact, there would be a huge downfall for the countries. To summarize, we believe that the NAFTA agreement shouldn’t be canceled, because not only will it affect Mexico, but other countries that depend on NAFTA.

    Here you can find more news related to NAFTA:

    NAFTA | News, Videos & Articles. (n.d.). Retrieved October 20, 2017, from https://globalnews.ca/tag/nafta/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous20 October 2017 at 17:58

    We think that if they cancel the treaty, it will have a very negative effect on the Mexican economy and affect not only Mexico but United States and Canada too. If Donald Trump keeps thinking only on his country, it will end up affecting him too because it is not convenient for the US that Mexico has a bad economy. The blog was very well explained and agree on bias and in their opinion on the solution, because they are totally correct on the fact that NAFTA shouldn’t even be decreased. Also, NAFTA is a greater trade area than the European Union, this shows the hard work that many industries have accomplished and all the good things it has resulted in to just close the deal.
    Amadeo, K. (2017,Mayo 08). 6 Advantages of NAFTA. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/advantages-of-nafta-3306271

    ReplyDelete
  21. Unknown20 October 2017 at 21:41

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Unknown20 October 2017 at 21:43

    As I was reading this article I realized that Canada will be seriously affected if the NAFTA is canceled. Here in Mexico we mostly think that the damages will be for the US and Mexico but we forget that Canada is affected just as much. In my opinion the NAFTA is an excellent agreement where these three countries can benefit and I really don't think that the president of the US, Donald J. Trump, should cancel this agreement. It would not only affect Mexico, but the US and Canada as well.
    You can find more here:
    Tencer, D. (2017, August 24). What Happens If Trump Cancels NAFTA? Retrieved October 21, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/24/what-happens-if-trump-cancels-nafta_a_23163682/

    ReplyDelete
  23. Unknown22 October 2017 at 05:03

    I agree with what David said about the authors bias being for Canada because of the strong words that he used in context against the US. I also agree that he did a great job of figuring out who the intended audience was. Since Canadians are the ones who would be majorly impacted by this. For me it was a little hard to understand the article but it does seem to important for the countries which are involved in this.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unknown22 October 2017 at 08:35

    I think that David did a great job in identifying the intended audience and bias that was located in the article also benefiting to the fact of how this was directed to the Canadian community and he in fact is Canadian. I agree with Sanny that the authors intended bias did influence the direction in tone of the overall passage and their tone expressed through their word choices brought a lot of negativity and bias to the passage when talking about the US in the NAFTA trade talks. This would give the readers a negative outlook then towards the US in this article presenting the situation that they have with NAFTA. And like many have mentioned i agree with the fact that Donald Trump is in fact making a mistake trying to revoke NAFTA which may have an effect on not just the US trading system but others as well. I agree with Mauricio Colorado Tamez When they mentioned the negative effects that this revoke has caused and how for the future it will only get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Josh Loudon22 October 2017 at 10:58

    David and several other people mentioned that the intended audience is Canada, or Canadians and I agree with that, but it could also be for the American and Mexican government officials as well. It includes them as well. David said that the bias was toward Canada, and I agree with that also. But even though the bias is toward Canada, the author could be slightly talking to the Americans and Mexicans, telling them why they support Canada and what they should do to change. Many others before me said that Donald Trump would be making a mistake in revoking NAFTA because its free trade, so why would the United States want to pay for trading with Mexico and Canada? In my opinion, this could only hurt the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Krista Entwistle22 October 2017 at 11:14

    I would agree with David on the audience. As an American citizen, i feel like i should know more about this, however i didn't. So i had to go an do some more research. I feel like this article is very biased against America. However, after reading more about this issue, I feel myself tilting against the United States as well. I, too, see the benefits that NAFTA brings the rest of North America, and i don't want that to drastically change. I also would agree with David when he says that the solution is not to end or decrease NAFTA - the whole of North America is benefiting from it too much, and without it, trade and economics could decrease for each country. I really enjoyed getting to understand more about this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nathan Daubenmier22 October 2017 at 21:40

    This article also seems confusing to me, especially because I do not have much background information on the NAFTA and what it does. I guess that even how the article does not include defining what the NAFTA is demonstrates some of the bias of the article towards those who live in North America and who are well informed on the interactions between the governments of the countries and the role that the NAFTA plays in that interaction. It does appear however, as many have already said, that for the sake of each country involved in the agreement it would be detrimental to eliminate the NAFTA.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Henry Jones23 October 2017 at 01:02

    NAFTA is a very helpful trade agreement for the countries of North America. So I can see why Trump wants to try and obtain an extremely beneficial change to NAFTA. As it would significantly help the American economy making him look like a good businessman for America at the expense of Mexico and Canada. However the kind of reform that Trump would be looking would never be accepted because of the obvious shift of money to America away from Mexico and Canada. And trying to force Mexico and Canada to except these terms will only put America on worse terms with it's neighbors or dissolve NAFTA completely, which would be a huge economic lose. Effectively accomplishing the opposite of Trump's desired affect

    ReplyDelete
  29. Unknown23 October 2017 at 03:08

    I agree with David that this article is very biased against the North American stance in the NAFTA. I too would tend to agree with their stance in that the trade agreement is very important to the economies of Mexico and Canada. This article also talked about how Trump threatened to leave the pact which I believe would be hugely detrimental because not only could it hurt the US in some aspects of it's economy it would create incredible tension between these neighboring countries. At the moment these three nations have pretty good relations and the NAFTA is definitely somewhat beneficial so I think that it is important that it is kept in tact.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Unknown23 October 2017 at 03:19

    I also agree with others in that David did a really good job with narrowing down the audience. Like most of the others, I can also see that the writer is very biased towards Mexico and Canada. Using words like "attacks" and "claw back" are highlighting the fact that the writer is viewing Trump in a very negative way. The article is mostly focusing on what the US President is doing so terribly and how he is trying to force Canada and Mexico to do what he says. As a reader, I couldn't really help but feel a some negativity and irritation towards the United States. I am not a specialist in NAFTA so I'm not sure if this is a huge thing for both Canada and Mexico but I'm sure that whatever Trump is doing isn't making the situation any better.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Wanderer23 October 2017 at 03:31

    I agree with Grace, David did do a good job narrowing down the audience. The word choice they use Like" Attack" and "Claw back" points all the attention, i think, on the people they are fighting against, and viewing trump in a negative way. i Think the main foucus of this article is pointed towards Mexico and Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Unknown23 October 2017 at 04:11

    I thought that David did a fantastic job of dissecting this article and, sought the bias of each category well. I agree with many of you that the Author does in fact have a bias against United States. Even though the article was confusing in some areas, David did a good job of analyzing this article and spotting out the important parts of the article. It is clear to see the bias of the NAFTA based on how they demonstrate the bias towards the people in North America and people of the interactions of the governments, and of NAFTA. It is important to note that for the importance of each country involved in the agreement, it will be dangerous to have the NAFTA to cease

    ReplyDelete
  33. Unknown23 October 2017 at 05:27

    I think that David did a great job identifying the different biases in this article. I definitely agree that the author seemed pretty biased in favor of Canada and Mexico and against Trump. This can be seen by their diction, as they used several negative expressions such as "attacks". I also agree with his analysis on who the article is targeted for, as prior knowledge on the NAFTA seems to be assumed. Since I personally know absolutely nothing about it, I struggled somewhat to understand the article. Overall, I can see how important NAFTA is to so many countries and how absolutely detrimental it would be if it collapsed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Unknown23 October 2017 at 05:29

    It's disappointing that the only way that Donald Trump sees America "winning" is by weakening the stance of other nations. In this case America just seems like a big bully. Whether the president is simply taking a hard stance, so that they achieve favorable conditions is yet to be seen, but what has been shown in this article is that the United States is not afraid to throw their weight around and possibly cause frosty international relations to "Make America Great." The problem with nationalism is that it often comes at the detriment of the surrounding nations. It would also be appropriate to note that the United States benefits from trade relations with the other North American countries.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elon Musk's huge Falcon Heavy rocket set for launch

US entrepreneur Elon Musk will attempt to fly the world's most powerful rocket later from the Kennedy Space Center. His Falcon Heavy vehicle is designed to have more than twice the lifting capacity of any existing launcher. Because of the historic high failure rate of maiden flights, the rocket will only carry a dummy payload, however. Mr Musk has decided this should be his old cherry-red Tesla sports car. A mannequin wearing a space suit will be strapped to the driving seat. The entrepreneur says David Bowie's classic hit Space Oddity will be looping on the radio in the roadster as it is hurled into an elliptical orbit that stretches out to Mars' orbit around the Sun. "[The car will] get about 400 million km away from Earth, and it'll be doing 11km/s," he told reporters in a briefing on Monday. "We estimate it will be in that orbit for several hundred million years, maybe in excess of a billion years." Three cameras attached to the car ...
Read more

North Korea vows to freeze nuclear weapons tests

North Korea has agreed to freeze its ongoing nuclear weapons tests, if its security can be guaranteed, South Korea's top security adviser said following his trip to the communist state. In a press briefing on Tuesday, Chung Eui-yong also announced that North Korea's Kim Jong-un and his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in will hold a landmark summit in April. The summit of the two leaders will be held at the joint security area of Panmunjom, according to the official South Korean news agency, Yonhap. The announcement followed high-level talks in Pyongyang between Chung and top North Korean leaders, including Kim Jong-un. "The North side clearly affirmed its commitment to the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and said it would have no reason to possess nuclear weapons should the safety of its regime be guaranteed and military threats against North Korea removed," he said. ----- My Response Audience:  Th audience of this article is clearly very w...
Read more

Rohingya crisis: UN sees 'ethnic cleansing' in Myanmar

The security operation targeting Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar "seems a textbook example of ethnic cleansing", the UN human rights chief says. Zeid Raad Al Hussein urged Myanmar to end the "cruel military operation" in Rakhine state. More than 300,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled to Bangladesh since violence erupted there late last month. The military says it is responding to attacks by Rohingya militants and denies it is targeting civilians. The violence began on 25 August when the Rohingya militants attacked police posts in northern Rakhine, killing 12 security personnel. Rohingyas who have fled Myanmar since then say the military responded with a brutal campaign, burning villages and attacking civilians in a bid to drive them out. The Rohingya, a stateless mostly Muslim minority in Buddhist-majority Rakhine, have long experienced persecution in Myanmar, which says they are illegal immigrants. Mr Zeid, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human R...
Read more