Trilateral Commission

Rona Ambrose was a Member of the Trilateral Commission as reported in Vancouver's Georgia Straight, August 24, 2006.

Well shucks who knew. The Trilateral Commission is the public face of the those other secret societies of the corporatist ruling class like the Bilderbergers and the Davos Forum.

It is the original source for George Bush Seniors announcement of the New World Order.

Managing the International System Over the Next Ten Years: Three Essays
The Trilateral Commission (© 1997)
Bill Emmott, Koji Watanabe and Paul Wolfowitz

The 2006 annual meeting of the Trilateral Commission dealt with "Globalisation and Governance".

The Commission, which operates through three regional secretariats, coordinates task forces on a variety of pressing issues in international affairs and meets in regional groups as well as in an annual three-day plenary to discuss these studies and to share perspectives on common political, economic, and foreign policy challenges. The task force reports are published as a series called The Triangle Papers. Also, a report on the annual meeting is published each year as part of the Trialogue series. The annual meeting of Trilateral Commission members rotates among the three regions.

Holly Sklars book remains one of the best on the Trilateral Commission and it's importance in setting the agenda for Globalization, without falling into the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that abound around ruling class institutions like these. As I wrote in my article; Conspiracy Theory or Ruling Class Studies

"The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the U.S." -- attributed to Senator Barry Goldwater.

The new "trilateralism" reflects the realization that the international system now requires "a truly common management," as the Commission reports indicate. The trilateral powers must order their internal relations and face both the Russian bloc, now conceded to be beyond the reach of Grand Area planning, and the Third World. Noam Chomsky: The Carter Administration: Myth and Reality

A Trilateral Commission Task Force Report, presented at the 1975 meeting in Kyoto, Japan, called An Outline for Remaking World Trade and Finance, said: "Close Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, and in fostering economic development and in alleviating world poverty, will improve the chances of a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system." Another Commission document read: "The overriding goal is to make the world safe for interdependence by protecting the benefits which it provides for each country against external and internal threats which will constantly emerge from those willing to pay a price for more national autonomy. This may sometimes require slowing the pace at which interdependence proceeds, and checking some aspects of it. More frequently however, it will call for checking the intrusion of national government into the international exchange of both economic and non-economic goods." In other words, they were promoting world government by encouraging economic interdependence among the superpowers.

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973, and it is widely perceived as an off-shoot of the Council On Foreign Relations. According to Christopher Lydon, writing in the July 1977 Atlantic, "The Trilateral Commission was David Rockefeller's brainchild." At the time, David Rockefeller was Chairman of the Council On Foreign Relations, having been elected to that post in 1970. David Rockefeller became the founding Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, which consists of leaders in business, banking, government and mass media from North America, Europe, and Japan invited to join by Rockefeller himself.

A related purpose of the Trilateral Commission was to promote cooperation among the industrialized countries in the face of an emerging bloc of Arab, African and Asian states which had come to dominate the General Assembly of the United Nations.

But the Trilateralists did not want to give up on the United Nations. The economic and political elites of America and Europe seek international political power in order to provide a stable investment climate, including protection against nationalization of their assets.

At the same time, the international bankers and multi- national corporations have gained much of their wealth through partnership with government. The corporate elite look to governments for lucrative contracts; taxpayer subsidized financing; and protection from competition.

The international bankers and multinational corporations have exploited two UN financial agencies in particular - the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But they have relied on their own national governments to attempt to protect their foreign investments.

The politicians have looked to a strengthened United Nations for a different reason. Politicians seek power. Control over their own government is all too often only a beginning to their ambition. History is littered with corpses who mutely testify to the imperial ambitions and arrogance of politicians.

In 1973, the U.S. was winding down its involvement in Vietnam. The Vietnam War had proved to be a costly mistake, and had turned a majority of the American people against the idea of military intervention in other countries.

As noted, the Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973, in the midst of the Middle East oil crisis. The ostensible cause of the oil crisis was a decision by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to dramatically raise the posted price for oil, with the price hike enforced by limited production quotas for each member country.

11 Jun 1993 The Washington Times reports: "Presidential counsellor David Gergen resigned yesterday from the all-male Bohemian Club, three days after saying he would not run around naked at its annual Bohemian Grove encampment and insisting he would not quit. White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers announced the resignation along with Mr. Gergen's departure from 17 other interest groups, charities and public boards ranging from the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group and Council on Foreign Relations."

For Canadians our concern has to be that the Trilateralists promote deep integration starting with the original Mulroney Reagan FTA followed by NAFTA evolving into a continental alliance,or North American Union, including shared monetary standards.

Canadians On the Trilateral Commission 2005 appointments

Rona Ambrose, Member of Parliament, Ottawa, ON

Maurizio Bevilacqua, Member of Parliament, Ottawa, ON

Arthur A. DeFehr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Palliser Furniture, Winnipeg, MB

André Desmarais, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Power Corporation of Canada, Montréal, QC; Deputy Chairman, Power Financial Corporation

Peter C. Dobell, Founding Director, Parliamentary Centre, Ottawa, ON

Wendy K. Dobson, Professor and Director, Institute for International Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON; former Canadian Associate Deputy Minister of Finance

Peter C. Godsoe, Chairman of Fairmont Hotels & Resorts; Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Scotiabank, Toronto, ON

*Allan E. Gotlieb, Senior Advisor, Stikeman Elliott, Toronto, ON; Chairman, Sotheby’s, Canada; former Canadian Ambassador to the United States; North American Deputy Chairman, Trilateral Commission

E. Peter Lougheed, Senior Partner, Bennett Jones, Barristers & Solicitors, Calgary, AB; former Premier of Alberta

Roy MacLaren, former Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom; former Canadian Minister of International Trade; Toronto, ON

John A. MacNaughton, former President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Toronto, ON

Brian Mulroney, Senior Partner, Ogilvy Renault, Barristers and Solicitors, Montréal, QC; former Prime Minister of Canada

Hartley Richardson, President and Chief Executive Officer, James Richardson & Sons, Ltd., Winnipeg, MB

Gordon Smith, Director, Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC; Chairman, Board of Governors, International Development Research Centre; former Canadian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Personal Representative of the Prime Minister to the Economic Summit

Ronald D. Southern, Chairman, ATCO Group, Calgary, AB

Barbara Stymiest, Chief Operating Officer, RBC Financial Group, Toronto, ON

See:

Bilderberg

Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy

Ruling Class



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Rona Ambrose, Trilateral Commission, CFR, Bilderberg, Davos, Secret Societies, NWO, New World Order, Globalization, Conspiracy, Conspiracy theory, Bohemian Grove, Conspiracy Theories, Ruling Class, Chomsky, Carter, Bush, UN

 

Trilateral Militarization: From Missiles to Nukes

The trilateral militarization of the US, Japan and the Philippines has officially started. From missiles to nuclearization, it could cast a dark shadow over the Philippines and Southeast Asia.

by Dan Steinbock Posted onApril 18, 2024

In the Philippines, the proponents of the trilateral alliance frame it as a response to the “threat of assertive China.” In reality, the unwarranted trilateral alliance seems to be the result of a longstanding US maritime counter-insurgency (COIN) campaign, resting on the work of the US Navy Department and other US interests.

The purpose of the campaign has been to escalate the South China Sea friction in international media to justify trilateral militarization.

In the Philippines, the concern for escalation is fairly widespread. On Friday former president Duterte warned in Chinese media that “the US is trying to provoke a war between China and the Philippines,” expressing his hope that the Philippines can change course to “resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”

The trilateral alliance seems to be a prelude to a massive rearmament drive that has potential to undermine and possibly collapse the expected Asian Century of peace and development.  

Nuclearization via QUAD and AUKUS              

In March 2023, US President Joe Biden held a press conference on the AUKUS partnership with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego, California. A glimpse of the Asian future was provided by the nuclear-powered USS Missouri submarine, which was visibly in the background. It was meant to be a signal to China.

Ironically, the net effect is rising nuclearization in the South China Sea by countries that are not located in the ASEAN territories. The US-led multilateral security framework targeting China rests on the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) between the US, Japan, Australia and India. AUKUS is more actionable. It seeks to hem in China’s moves with a nested military network, including sharing advanced military technologies like nuclear-powered submarines. The first subs will be built in the UK by late 2030s and in Australia after 2040.

In the interest of time, the US plans to forward-deploy Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, coupled with the UK’s similar Astute-class subs, to a naval base near Perth in Western Australia, already by 2027. AUKUS is also likely to expand in 2024 or early 2025. Japan and Canada are in line to join the so-called pillar 2 section of the AUKUS agreement, while US is courting South Korea and New Zealand.

From the Chinese viewpoint, the US is expanding the AUKUS military alliance by “forming a mini-NATO in Asia, which poses unprecedented threats and challenges to the region’s prosperity and stability.” The track-record – from Iraq and Afghanistan to Ukraine and Gaza – is not assuring.

But nuclearization takes time. Hence, the missiles.

Missiles and militarization             

As veteran political analyst Francisco Tatad writes, “Marcos sees China as the source of the danger, but he does not say why our two countries should be going to war with each other over some pieces of stone in the vast disputed sea.” Tatad asks, “Whose war must we prepare for?”

The question about “whose war” remains blurry, unlike the question “how” that war could begin. Due to the 2019 expiration of the previously banned Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the U.S. is planning to deploy ground-based intermediate-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific already in 2024, thus establishing its first arsenal in the region since the end of the Cold War.

Missiles over South China Sea?

The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) launches a Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) during a live-fire test of the ship’s aegis weapons system (Pacific Ocean, June 19, 2014). Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Originally developed by the huge US defense contractor Raytheon, which has played a key role in Ukraine’s devastation, these missiles feature land-based versions of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) and the Tomahawk cruise missile, with ranges between 500 and 2,700 kilometers (photo right). Tomahawks in particular have been used from the Gulf War to Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Reportedly, the U.S. Army will send the intermediate-range missile units primarily to the U.S. territory of Guam, looking for more forward deployment to Asian allies in a contingency. These allies, like Philippines, are likely expected to be open to “rotational deployments in crises.”

Responding to a crisis in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea will require missiles that can reach targets in those critical waterways or the Chinese mainland. This means an extended deployment near the “first island chain,” which stretches from Japan’s Okinawa islands to Taiwan and, yes, the Philippines.

A decade of steps toward militarization

The US Naval Department’s involvement seems to have intensified since the mid-2010s, when the late foreign secretary Albert F. del Rosario had a key role in the creation of the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which opened the country to U.S. military, ships, and planes; for the first time since 1991. A year later, Rosario met Obama’s then-deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken in Manila, aiming at bigger bilateral commitments.

Toward deeper military alignments

(Left) Foreign Affairs Secretary del Rosario and then-Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Manila in Nov. 2015. (Center) Foreign Affairs Secretary Locsin, Jr. and INDOPACOM Commander Adm. John C. Aquilino in Aug, 2021. (Right) Gen. Romeo Brawner, Jr., Chief of Staff and Adm. Aquilino in Mar. 2024.  Source: DFA, DFA-OPCD.

President Duterte’s electoral triumph in 2016 caused a six-year breather in the ambitious plans. Militarization began to move ahead in 2021, when Admiral John C. Aquilino, Commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), met foreign secretary Locsin, Jr. Adm. Aquilino welcomed bilateral progress as “a huge leap forward” and US press release described the ties as an “alliance.”

Aquilino’s calls matter. The INDOPACOM is the largest of six geographic combatant commands of the US Armed Forces. It is responsible for all U.S. military activities in the Indo-Pacific region.

But nothing was set in stone, yet. President Marcos Jr had pledged building on Duterte legacy and nurturing strong ties with both the US and China, like most ASEAN nations. But these pledges had to go. They were misaligned with the Big Defense’s plans for Manila.

In October 2022, Senator Imee Marcos, chair of Philippine foreign relations committee, still pled in Washington: “Do not make us choose between the United States and China.” But prior to the address, her younger brother, President Marcos had met President Biden and discussed “the full breadth of issues in the alliance.” Subsequently, major electoral pledges turned upside down and trilateral mobilization became an inflated response to a deflated problem.

Rightly, columnist Rigoberto Tiglao wondered why the Philippines should go to war with China, its biggest trading partner, over a dispute that “is solely over Ayungin Shoal, a permanently submerged, useless small area.”

Militarization benefited the Pentagon and the Big Defense. But what exactly did Manila get in return, except for risks?

More bases, more targets: 9, 15, or 20 sites?

In spring early 2023, President Marcos Jr. granted U.S. forces access to four new bases, in addition to five existing bases included under the expanded Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). The decision was opposed vehemently by several provinces and municipalities in the target areas. But these concerns were quickly suppressed as “unnecessary.” Even the Congress proved oddly numb about the seismic foreign policy shift, despite its huge economic and geopolitical implications.

And yet, in September, Adm. Aquilino returned to the Philippines to discuss “opportunities for increased multilateral cooperation, maritime security initiatives, and the upcoming exercise Balikatan.” The U.S. had added 63 projects for the EDCA sites on top of the previously-approved 32. These projects included multipurpose storage facilities, road networks and fuel storage, “among others.” Although the U.S. officially has only “rotational access” to the Philippines bases, it had allocated over $109 million towards infrastructure improvements at some seven EDCA locations.

Presumably, the Philippines is to serve as a logistical platform, to tie China in the South China Sea (SCS) before a potential Taiwan crisis. But more is needed. Or as Radio Free Asia reported: “The US is seeking access to more bases in the Philippines on top of nine sites already included under an expanded pact.”

Just weeks later, in a Senate hearing, Senator Robinhood Padilla addressed the presence of a US Navy Poseidon aircraft circling overhead during a resupply mission, suggesting that the US naval presence unnecessarily caused an escalation between China and the Philippines. Instead of welcoming Padilla’s comments as an opening for a democratic debate on the pros and cons of the foreign policy U-turn, the questions were hush-hushed away.

Eclipse of Southeast Asian economic engines

Until recently, Japan and the Philippines were reluctant to host new American capabilities, to avoid becoming an immediate target of the Chinese military in a crisis. As economic challenges are amounting in both countries, things are changing.

But us trilateral mobilization the only option?

While affirming the strong US-Philippines bilateral alliance in the 2022 CSIS event, senator Imee Marcos affirmed the broad US-Philippines address, but it was not exclusive with “engagement with China, including joint development, confidence-building measures, and a code of conduct in the South China Sea.” In a multipolar world, there is room for multiple power centers.

Against widespread criticism and skepticism in the ASEAN, the proponents of the trilateral militarization portray it as a pillar of “peace and stability” in the region. They live in a parallel universe. As several ASEAN leaders have warned, trilateral mobilization has potential to split Southeast Asia and bury the Asian Century. 

Dr. Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net.

 A version of the commentary was published by China-US Focus on April 12, 2024. 

TECHNOCRACY THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order 


by Patrick Wood (Author) 
Format: Kindle Edition

https://tinyurl.com/yazkxzdh

In 1974, Trilateral Commission member and academic Richard Gardner wrote an article "The Hard Road to World Order" for Foreign Affairs magazine, predicting the future of the Commission's self-proclaimed New International Economic Order. Gardner spoke of an "end-run around national sovereignty", a "booming, buzzing confusion" and building it from the "bottom up" rather than attempting an "old-fashioned frontal assault."After almost 45 years, it is time to examine the record. In Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, Wood traces the steps and developments that led to the United Nations' establishment of Sustainable Development as an outgrowth of historic Technocracy from the 1930s. UN programs such as 2030 Agenda, New Urban Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement are all working together to displace Capitalism and Free Enterprise as the world's principal economic system. As a resource-based economic system, Sustainable Development intends to take control of all resources, all production and all consumption on planet earth, leaving all of its inhabitants to be micro-managed by a Scientific Dictatorship. Topics covered include the devolution of federal governments combined with the rise of global Smart Cities. Tools are examined, like ubiquitous surveillance, collaborative governance, Public-Private Partnerships, Reflexive Law, Fintech, including crypto currencies and the drive toward a cashless society. The spiritual aspect of Sustainable Development is also explored as an important component of manipulation. Looking underneath the cover of globalization, Wood shatters the false narrative of a promised Utopia and exposes the true nature of the deception used to promote this new economic order. Those elite who hate the bedrock of American liberty and its time-tested Constitution have pulled out all the stops to destroy both, and it's time for citizens to stand up to reject them. As always, Wood closes with the nature of effective resistance and the tools that can help to achieve success.

The dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism. It is Technocracy.

With meticulous detail and an abundance of original research, Patrick M. Wood uses Technocracy Rising to connect the dots of modern globalization in a way that has never been seen before so that the reader can clearly understand the globalization plan, its perpetrators and its intended endgame.

In the heat of the Great Depression during the 1930s, prominent scientists and engineers proposed a utopian energy-based economic system called Technocracy that would be run by those same scientists and engineers instead of elected politicians. Although this radical movement lost momentum by 1940, it regained status when it was conceptually adopted by the elitist Trilateral Commission (co-founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller) in 1973 to be become its so-called "New International Economic Order."]

https://tinyurl.com/yaq3b7u9

In the ensuing 41 years, the modern expression of Technocracy and the New International Economic Order is clearly seen in global programs such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Councils of Governments, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Total Awareness surveillance initiatives and more.

Wood contends that the only logical outcome of Technocracy is Scientific Dictatorship, as already seen in dystopian literature such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932) and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1948), both of whom looked straight into the face of Technocracy when it was still in its infancy.

With over 250 footnotes, an extensive bibliography and clarity of writing style, Wood challenges the reader to new levels of insight and understanding into the clear and present danger of Technocracy, and how Americans might be able to reject it once again.

OMG HERE ARE THE SECRET PLANS OF THE NWO

     

Policy Innovations Transformative Change - Local 2030 ...

https://www.local2030.org › library › Policy-Innovations-for-Transformativ...

Oct 4, 2016 - Societies across the world are facing many complex ... Pathways to transformative change for sustainable development ... Chapter 2: New Trends and Innovations in Social Policy ... Government policies are key for upscaling, capacity building and facilitating ... the creation of carbon markets or incentives for.

HURRAH AN ORGANIZATION; TECHNOCRACY THAT BARELY EXISTS THIS GUY SAYS THEY ARE THE NEW CONSPIRACY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD

I LOVE THIS SCIENCE FICTION STUFF AS A HERESIOLOGIST, A HERESY HAS A HERESY OPPOSING IT.

BUT OF COURSE IT ALL BEGINS WITH THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0986373923/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2
This is the documented story of the organization and members of the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, with the specific purpose of creating a "New International Economic Order". With an small but powerful international membership hand-picked by an executive committee, Commissioners asserted undue influence over America, Japan and Europe. In 1976, Trilateral members James Earl Carter and Walter Mondale were elected to head the Executive Branch in the U.S., thus starting a 40 year hegemony over the greatest economic nation on earth. American influence and position was used to reform international trade, promote globalization and interdependence among nations. European Trilateral members were then instrumental in using the United Nations to create a doctrine of Sustainable Development and Green Economy: See Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (Wood, 2015) for details. Originally written in 1979-1980, Trilaterals Over Washington quickly became a best-seller and over the course of about two years, sold over 75,000 copies internationally. The books were very well received for excellent scholarship and original research, and even became a frequently-used textbook in political science classes at many colleges in U.S. universities. The co-author, Professor Antony C. Sutton, passed in 2002 having authored 24 books during a distinguished academic career that included UCLA and the Hoover Institution at 
Stanford University.

Since at least 1973, the engine of globalization has been the troika of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements. Acting in concert with each other, national barriers were broken down and national assets were often raided with impunity. Biography
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.

He is the author of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.

Wood remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development on a global scale.

An economist by education, a financial analyst and writer by profession and an American Constitutionalist by choice, Wood maintains a Biblical world view and has deep historical insights into the modern attacks on sovereignty, property rights and personal freedom. Such attacks are epitomized by the implementation of U.N. policies such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth and in education, the widespread adoption of Common Core State Standards.


Wood is a frequent speaker and guest on radio shows around the nation. His current research builds on Trilateral Commission hegemony, focusing on Technocracy, Transhumanism and Scientism, and how these are transforming global economics, politics and religion.

THANK FNORD 

WW III

China watching closely as US, Japan, South Korea aim for 'de facto Asian NATO'

South China Morning Post
Tue, August 15, 2023 

China is said to be on "high alert" as US President Joe Biden hosts the leaders of Japan and South Korea at Camp David this week to deepen technological and defence ties - building what some observers have called a "de facto Asian Nato" on China's doorstep.

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida will be joining Biden on Friday at the US presidential retreat in rural Maryland for the first three-way summit of its kind.

They are expected to announce plans for expanded cooperation on ballistic missile defence systems and technology development, senior US officials told Reuters.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

They are likely to also agree to set up a new three-way crisis hotline and gather annually in the future, Reuters quoted the officials as saying.

In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said China was opposed to "the cobbling together of various small circles by the countries concerned".

"[China] also opposes practices that exacerbate confrontation and jeopardise the strategic security of other countries," Wang said.

"The countries concerned should follow the trend of the times and do more that is conducive to regional peace, stability and prosperity."

Lu Chao, dean of the Institute of American and East Asian Studies at Liaoning University in northeastern China, said Friday's meeting could lead to a trilateral military alliance that would hit a nerve in Beijing.

"The [likely] mechanism of regular meetings among heads of state and the fixed mechanism of cooperation in the military aspect amount to the de facto formation of a three-way military alliance," Lu said.

While North Korea is expected to top the agenda, Beijing will be watching for specific references to Taiwan in the joint statement expected to be issued at the end of the summit, observers in mainland China said.

Beijing considers Taiwan a breakaway province to be eventually reunited, by force if needs be. While most countries, including the US, Japan and South Korea, do not recognise self-ruled Taiwan as an independent state, but oppose any attempt to take the island by force.

"China is on high alert for the summit, especially if the Taiwan issue is to be mentioned," Lu said.


"If they raise the Taiwan issue publicly at the summit, it would be seen as a strong provocation to China and will be a dangerous move for stability in the Asia-Pacific."

Taiwan's Vice President William Lai (centre left) chats with Ingrid D. Larson (right) managing director of the American Institute in Taiwan/Washington Office, upon arrival in New York on Sunday. Photo: Taiwan Presidential Office via AP alt=Taiwan's Vice President William Lai (centre left) chats with Ingrid D. Larson (right) managing director of the American Institute in Taiwan/Washington Office, upon arrival in New York on Sunday. Photo: Taiwan Presidential Office via AP>

The statement would also contain general observations on maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, though the exact wording was expected to be negotiated up until the last minute, an anonymous US official told Reuters.

Friday's summit comes after months of diplomacy by the Biden administration, which has tried to bring together Washington's treaty allies Japan and South Korea as part of a campaign to strengthen Asian military alliances to counter China.

The US signed the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with Japan in 1951. In 1953, following the Korean war armistice, it signed a Mutual Defence Treaty with South Korea.

Tokyo and Seoul have a troubled history, especially over Japan's wartime excesses as well as territorial issues, but a rising China, Russia's militarism and a nuclear-armed North Korea are factors bringing the two neighbours closer to each other and the US.

Tensions had peaked from time to time, until a major thaw in recent months as Yoon, who took office in May last year, has sought to repair ties with Japan and launched a strategic pivot to the US, to tackle growing military challenges from North Korea and souring ties with China and Russia.

North Korea test-fired around 90 missiles last year, nearly four times its peak of 25 in 2017. Last month, it tested its latest Hwasong-18 intercontinental ballistic missile, saying it was a warning to the US and other adversaries.

During an inspection tour of a military factory last week, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un called for an increase in missile production to help secure "overwhelming military power" and be ready for war, state news agency KCNA reported.

This came days before annual joint US-South Korean military exercises due to begin on Monday.

Under the principle of collective defence in Article 5 of the Nato treaty, an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all Nato members.

But Liu Jiangyong, an expert on regional affairs at Beijing's Tsinghua University, voiced scepticism about a trilateral alliance comparable to Nato.

"The three countries do not have the security commitments that Nato countries have with each other, and Japan and South Korea are security partners, not allies," Liu said.

The strategic goals of the three countries were also different, he said.

"The US may consider [its goals] from a global perspective, while Japan is largely targeting China ... South Korea, meanwhile, is trying to strengthen security cooperation with the US and Japan to build a greater military deterrent against North Korea."

However, he expected "joint military exercises and trilateral consultations against China" to continue.

In a speech on Tuesday marking the 78th anniversary of South Korea's liberation from Japanese colonial rule, Yoon said his country would step up security cooperation with the US and Japan in addressing the nuclear threat from North Korea.

Kim Jae-chun, an international relations professor at Sogang University in Seoul, also said any trilateral military technology cooperation would largely focus on North Korea.

"While previously the discussion remained on sharing the alert on North Korean missiles, now it will focus on the drills to intercept North Korean ballistic missiles using their radar and missile weapons systems," Kim said.

"I think it has a great meaning in deterring North Korean nuclear development. However, China will criticise South Korea's incorporation into the US missile defence system."

Kim said while the joint statement after the trilateral summit was not likely to point at China as a threat, the US-China rivalry had already turned into a strategic competition, regardless of the aims of the trilateral summit.

"The current trend shows that China-Russia-North Korea cooperation is strengthening in northeast Asia and US-South Korea-Japan ties are also increasing in response ... it appears that the two sides are containing each other."

This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP's Facebook and Twitter pages. Copyright © 2023 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Copyright (c) 2023. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

‘You can never become a Westerner:’ China’s top diplomat urges Japan and South Korea to align with Beijing and ‘revitalize Asia’

“No matter how blonde you dye your hair, how sharp you shape your nose, you can never become a European or American, you can never become a Westerner,” 


China's top diplomat Wang Yi attends the opening ceremony of the 2023 International Forum for Trilateral Cooperation in Qingdao, Shandong province on Monday. 

- Li Ziheng/Xinhua/Alamy Live News/AP

Nectar Gan
Wed, July 5, 2023 at 12:27 AM MDT·4 min read

China’s top diplomat has urged Japan and South Korea to foster a sense of “strategic autonomy” from the West and cooperate with Beijing to “revitalize Asia,” amid rising tensions between China and the two neighboring American allies.

The comments by Wang Yi on Monday come as Japan and South Korea forge closer relations with the United States – and mend ties with each other – driven by common concerns about Beijing’s growing influence and assertiveness in the region.

In a video shared by Chinese state media, Wang told Japanese and South Korean guests attending a trilateral forum in the eastern coastal city of Qingdao that most Americans and Europeans can’t tell China, Japan and South Korea apart.

“No matter how blonde you dye your hair, how sharp you shape your nose, you can never become a European or American, you can never become a Westerner,” Wang said. “We must know where our roots lie.”

Wang called for Japan and South Korea to work together with China to “prosper together, revitalize East Asia, revitalize Asia and benefit the world.”

Wang was speaking on the sidelines of the International Forum for Trilateral Cooperation, an annual event organized by Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul since 2011.

To experts on the region, Wang’s racialized comments harken back to the sentiment of racial pan-East Asian solidarity against the West in the early 20th century.

“Imperial Japan really leaned into that as it expanded, eventually declaring a ‘Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’, with conquest styled as win-win racial liberation,” said Joel Atkinson, a professor specializing in Northeast Asian international politics at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul.

“The reality, of course, was Japanese ultra-nationalists destroyed all that good will in China and Korea in their attempt to replace Western influence with a new Japanese hegemony.”

Atkinson said Japan and South Korea are likely to find Wang’s pitch “unpersuasive” given a long list of assertive actions Beijing has taken toward both countries over the years.

“Unsurprisingly, China’s Northeast Asian neighbors are now resisting Beijing’s attempt to change the regional order in its favor,” he said.

“Both have made it clear they feel safer with the US around, and have no interest in abandoning their alliances to instead rely on Beijing’s goodwill.”

‘Strategic autonomy’

On Monday, Wang also addressed the forum’s opening ceremony in an effort to “send a clear signal” of the potential for the three neighbors’ regrouping, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

In his opening remarks, Wang called for Japan and South Korea to “promote inclusive Asian values, foster a sense of strategic autonomy, maintain regional unity and stability, resist the return of the Cold War mentality and be free of the coercion of bullying and hegemony,” the statement said.

“The fate of the region is firmly in our own hands,” Wang was quoted as saying.

Xi Jinping, China’s most powerful leader in decades, has pushed to expand Beijing’s role on the world stage with an increasingly assertive foreign policy that has fueled tensions with many of its neighbors and the West.

In recent years, the Biden administration has stepped up efforts to unite allies and like-minded partners to counter China’s rising influence in the Pacific, including with South Korea and Japan, two of its most important allies in Asia.

Their trilateral ties are furthered strengthened by security concerns about North Korea. The three countries have conducted joint military drills this year to boost their coordination against increasing North Korean missile threats.

They’ve also issued joint statements on tensions in the Taiwan Strait – an area both Tokyo and Seoul say is vital to their respective security – which drew the ire of Beijing.

In a thinly veiled swipe at the US, Wang on Monday accused “certain major powers outside the region” of “exaggerating ideological differences” to sow confrontation and division, in order to seek geopolitical gains, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

“If this trend is allowed to develop, it will not only seriously interfere with the smooth progress of trilateral cooperation, but also aggravate tension and confrontation in the region,” Wang added.

South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin and Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi addressed the event via video link, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

East Asia's 'seismic shift': why China sees the Camp David summit as the start of a de facto military alliance


South China Morning Post
Sun, August 27, 2023 


As Washington inches closer to a de facto military alliance with Tokyo and Seoul, pundits have warned of the destabilising impact it could have on the regional power balance amid fears over escalating tensions between China and the US.

US President Joe Biden hailed the "new era" of a close security partnership between the three powers at a landmark trilateral summit held at Camp David over the weekend. While Biden also insisted the summit was not targeted at Beijing, a joint statement from the three powers voiced concerns about China's "dangerous and aggressive behaviour" in the South China Sea and its policy towards Taiwan.

On Monday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin lashed out at the summit, which he said had "smeared and attacked China" and was "a deliberate attempt to sow discord between China and our neighbours". He compared the partnership to other US-led alliances such as Aukus with Britain and Australia and the Quad with India, Japan and Australia.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

"We see two trajectories in the Asia-Pacific [region] today," Wang said. "One features efforts to advance solidarity, cooperation and economic integration. The other features attempts to stoke division and confrontation and revive the Cold War mentality."

Seong-hyon Lee, a senior fellow at George H.W. Bush Foundation for US-China Relations, said by formalising the cooperation between the countries, the Camp David summit marked "a de facto military alliance without explicitly stating so".

"We are witnessing a seismic shift in the East Asian security landscape that we haven't seen for the last 100 years," he said, noting that Biden, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida agreed to hold summits and joint military drills annually.

The trio also agreed to set up a new hotline to share military intelligence, pledged to share real-time data on North Korea's missile launches and discussed measures to de-risk global supply chains from exposure to China.

Shi Yinhong, a professor of international affairs at Renmin University in Beijing, said although the summit fell short of announcing a military alliance, it marked a new stage of intensifying strategic coordination between Washington and China's neighbours.


In recent years, he said, both the US and Japan had stepped up "extensive, in-depth and specific" preparations for a possible conflict with China over Taiwan, which Beijing sees as a runaway province that must be reunited, by force if necessary. He added both countries had also implemented supply chain restructuring to further squeeze China's strategic and economic operating space.

"Under these circumstances, the establishment of a permanent military and economic security framework against China by the United States, Japan and South Korea was formally put on their joint agenda through effective coordination, and thus there was a Camp David meeting," Shi said.

For Beijing, the most important takeaway from the summit was the high degree of coordination on China-related issues between the three powers, against the backdrop of the Biden administration's "comprehensive suppression of China", said Zhu Feng, a professor of international affairs at Nanjing University.

Of the three nations, Zhu said South Korea's rapprochement with Japan and its change of heart on sensitive issues such as the South China Sea and Taiwan on Yoon's watch were particularly unexpected for Beijing.

"While the US, Japan and South Korea have established a tighter trilateral alignment on regional security issues, the summit also meant that Seoul has basically ended its years-long policy of maintaining a balance between the US and China," Zhu said.

"The fact that South Korea has effectively picked a side in the US-China rivalry will have a very important impact on China's peripheral security and its strategic competition with the US in East Asia."

Unlike Japan, South Korea used to be reluctant to side with the US on maritime disputes and cross-strait tensions. But since Yoon took office over a year ago, Seoul has sought closer military ties with Washington, improved strained ties with Tokyo and increasingly aligned itself with the two countries on China issues.

The three leaders, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, formed what is being touted as a de facto military alliance at the Camp David summit. Photo: Getty Images via AFP alt=The three leaders, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, formed what is being touted as a de facto military alliance at the Camp David summit. Photo: Getty Images via AFP>

Beijing recently stepped up pressure on Seoul, publicly criticising the Yoon administration's pro-US stance, particularly his pursuit of close security alignment with the US and Japan. In June, China's ambassador to South Korea Xing Haiming was caught in a diplomatic row when he warned that Seoul would "definitely regret it" if it bet against Beijing in the US-China rivalry.

Apart from Yoon's pivot towards the US, Zhu said China's Wolf Warrior-diplomacy in dealing with South Korea, especially following Seoul's deployment of a US missile defence system known as THAAD in 2016, had also had negative impacts on bilateral ties.

"Following Japan's lead, South Korea has accepted that its security and strategic concerns trump other issues, including business and economic interests," he said.

Benoit Hardy-Chartrand, an international affairs specialist at Temple University Japan in Tokyo, said Yoon's election in South Korea was the key factor in bringing the three countries together.

"Without [Yoon's] willingness to reach out to Japan despite the political risks it entailed, none of this would have been possible," he said.

"This highlights the potential fragility of the trilateral partnership. While we cannot ignore the geopolitical variables that brought them together, this partnership remains liable to the vagaries of domestic politics in South Korea and, to a lesser extent, Japan."

He noted that if a candidate from the progressive opposition, which is traditionally more anti-Japanese, won the 2027 presidential election in South Korea, it could "spell serious trouble for trilateral cooperation".

Hardy-Chartrand added that the other factors behind the summit included North Korea's repeated missile provocations, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a shared perception among regional countries of a growing challenge posed by China.

"We cannot understate how significant the Camp David summit was. Leaders often tend to overhype such diplomatic events in order to score domestic points, but in this case, bringing the three leaders together for the first Japan-South Korea-US stand-alone summit was not only a diplomatic success for Biden, but also a sign of the widening fractures in regional geopolitics," he said.

Zhiqun Zhu, an international relations professor from Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, said the summit served to underline that the world was being divided into two Cold War-style camps, with the US and its allies on one side, and China, other authoritarian regimes and some developing countries on the other.

"As the Biden administration galvanises support from its allies in Europe and Asia in competing with China, tensions will not only grow between the US and China, but also between China and its Asian neighbours," he said.

"As a result, East Asia will become more unstable, and the dangers of conflict in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea will increase."

Zhu cautioned against what he called "a misguided belief" among the US and its allies that by strengthening security alliances, China would be deterred on issues such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.

"This miscalculation unfortunately underestimates China's will and preparedness to defend what it considers 'core' national interests," he said.

In response to the US, he said we could see China consolidate its relationships with Russia and other countries in its own circles, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and Brics, which held a summit in Johannesburg this week.

However, he said China should take a long view and wait for political changes in the US, South Korea and Japan before taking any action.

"After all, Biden may be out of office after the 2024 election, and approval ratings of both Yoon and Kishida are lacklustre at home. Nevertheless, it is unwise for China to confront the US head-on now, especially when Beijing is facing serious domestic challenges now," Zhu said.

Lee pointed to a possible weakness of the partnership: the three leaders' focus primarily on security "at a time when people are more concerned about the economy".

"If these moves do not yield economic benefits, they risk facing domestic political backlash," he said, adding that the leaders were trying to advance an economic partnership that complemented their security cooperation.

Kim Hyun-wook, a professor at Korea National Diplomatic Academy, also said domestic politics, especially leadership reshuffles, remained the biggest challenge for the trilateral partnership.

"If Trump wins the election [next year], the future of trilateral cooperation will be opaque, because Trump's keynote is America first and isolationism," he said. "The historical issue between South Korea and Japan will also rise back to the surface if Seoul has a regime change to progressive government."

Kim also said that despite China's frustration, it was unlikely to retaliate against Japan and South Korea due to economic difficulties and concerns about a public opinion backlash in both countries. He added that besides the North Korea factor, China's hardline diplomacy with South Korea and Japan had also played a big role in pushing them into the arms of America.

Hardy-Chartrand agreed that China's heavy-handed approach to South Korean relations was partly to blame for the situation.

"Beijing could until recently be comforted by the fact that South Korea was keen to maintain strong ties with China, in large part due to its economic dependence on its neighbour. But now that Seoul appears poised to move away from its traditional equidistance to Beijing and Washington, this is a blow to Chinese efforts to forge a favourable geopolitical environment and pry away American allies," he said.

Additional reporting by Seong Hyeon Choi

Copyright (c) 2023. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

TRUMP SOCK PUPPET

Danielle Smith '1,000 per cent' in favour of ousting Mexico from trilateral trade deal with U.S. and Canada

HOPES TO GET KEYSTONE PIPELINE BUILT

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith speaks at a news conference regarding a new Indigenous energy project with TC Energy in Calgary, Alta., July 30, 2024.

 THE CANADIAN PRESS/Todd Korol

Spencer Van Dyk
CTV News Parliamentary Bureau Writer, Producer
Follow |Contact
Updated Nov. 17, 2024 

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says she agrees it could be time to cut Mexico out of the trilateral free trade agreement with Canada and the United States.

"Mexico has gone in a different direction, and it's pretty clear that the Americans have indicated that they want to have a fair trade relationship," Smith told CTV's Question Period host Vassy Kapelos, in an interview airing Sunday. "Mexico is not in a position to be able to offer that, especially with the investment that they have from China."

The trilateral deal was first inked in 1994, at the time called NAFTA, before being renegotiated during former president and now-president-elect Donald Trump's first term.

Trump in this last election campaign vowed to reopen the agreement when it comes up for review in 2026.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, meanwhile, floated the idea earlier this week of ousting Mexico from the trilateral deal in favour of a bilateral one between just Canada and the U.S., a proposal of which Smith said she is "a thousand per cent" in support.

The majority of what Alberta sends to the U.S. is energy exports. According to Smith, Alberta has a $188-billion trade relationship with the United States, compared to the $2.9-billion trade relationship with Mexico.

"It's important, but our absolute number one priority is maintaining those strong trade ties with (the) United States, and if that requires us to do a bilateral agreement, then that's what we should do," she said.

On Tuesday, Ford accused Mexico of being a "back door" for China to get its products, namely vehicles, into North America, "undercutting" Canadian and American workers.

On Saturday, at the end of the APEC summit in Lima, Peru, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called Mexico a “solid trading partner,” but acknowledged concerns around Chinese investment in its economy that “need to be addressed.”

“I am hopeful that we’re going to be able to work constructively over the coming months and perhaps years to ensure that North America remains an advantageous place for North Americans, for our workers, for our middle class, and creates real growth,” Trudeau said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters on Wednesday that she's heard concerns from both the outgoing Biden administration and people connected to the incoming Trump administration that "Mexico is not acting the way that Canada and the U.S. are when it comes to its economic relationship with China."

"I think those are legitimate concerns for our American partners and neighbours to have," Freeland said. "Those are concerns that I share."

Derek Burney, who was former prime minister Brian Mulroney's chief of staff when the original NAFTA was negotiated, said a Canadian push to exclude Mexico from the agreement would be "childish."

Burney — who later served as the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. — told Kapelos, also in an interview airing Sunday, that Canada should focus on its own relationship with the U.S., instead of concerning itself with Mexico.

"I don't think we need to be provocative," he said. "I think the Mexicans are doing things that are going to give them enough difficulty with the Americans without our help."

"So no, I wouldn't recommend that we take that action," he added.

Burney said the Canadian focus should be on areas of alignment and potential collaboration with the U.S., namely when it comes to energy, liquified natural gas and critical minerals.

"The Mexicans are going to have a boatload of problems to deal with, with the Americans," Burney also said. "They don't need our help, and they won't seek our help, so let them deal with their own problems with the Americans."

Burney in his interview also discussed the need for Canada to spend more on defence, and faster than it currently plans to, if it wants to be taken seriously on other issues when negotiating with the United States.

And Smith in her interview also discussed the federal government's oil and gas sector emissions cap — a policy she's vehemently opposed — and her efforts to work with the people Trump has announced he plans to bring into his administration.

NAFTA 2/USMCA

Adios amigos? What Trump 2.0 means for Canada and Mexico

 not in Canada’s interest to throw Mexico under the bus.

THE CONVERSATION
Published: November 18, 2024 

Donald Trump looks over at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s document as they and Mexico’s president at the time, Enrique Pena Nieto, sign the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in November 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP-Martin Mejia

United States President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to implement an across-the-board tariff of at least 10 per cent on all imports into the country.

While there could be some exemptions for American imports of oil, gas and other natural resources, it’s not yet clear whether Canada will be protected by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

In fact, when the deal comes up for a mandatory review in 2026, Trump has said: “I’m going to have a lot of fun.”

Read more: Facing trade renegotiations, Canada can no longer count on free trade to protect it from U.S. power

Our mission is to share knowledge and inform decisions.About us

Given that more than 77 per cent of Canada’s exports go to the United States, Canadians have understandably viewed Trump’s declarations with alarm.

And against the likely torrent of American protectionism, Canada has few good options. Responding in kind, for example, will likely lead to a rise in inflation.
Kicking out Mexico?

One idea, recently floated by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, is to abandon CUSMA’s trilateral framework and seek a bilateral Canada-U.S. trade deal. As Ford put it: “We must prioritize the closest economic partnership on Earth by directly negotiating a bilateral U.S.-Canada free trade agreement.”

The premier’s specific complaint is that the Mexican government has failed to prevent the trans-shipment of Chinese goods — especially auto parts and vehicles — through its country in order subvert tariffs imposed by the American and Canadian governments against China.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford at the Ontario legislature in October 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

If Mexico won’t act to prevent trans-shipments or impose its own tariffs on Chinese goods, Ford explained, “they shouldn’t have a seat at the table or enjoy access to the largest economy in the world.”

Ford’s comments drew immediate criticism from Mexican trade officials, but Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s deputy prime minister and finance minister, was more sympathetic. Concerns about Mexican handling of Chinese goods “are legitimate concerns for our American partners and neighbours to have. Those are concerns that I share,” she said.

This is not the first time Canadians have expressed wariness about including Mexico in common North American arrangements.
Canada’s position on Mexico

In 1956, when U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed a trilateral summit with Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and Mexican President Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, Canadian diplomats expressed their opposition to anything that “would appear to equate the relations between the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico.”

For Ottawa, it was essential to preserve the notion of a special relationship between Canada and the U.S.

Even though the three leaders eventually met in Warm Springs, Ga., the “summit” ultimately consisted of separate U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico bilateral meetings.

Four decades later, Canada pressed to be included in what became the North American Free Trade Agreeement — known as NAFTA — not because of any fellowship with Mexico, but to ensure that its newly won market access to the United States (thanks to the 1988 Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada) was not undercut by a bilateral Mexico-U.S. deal.
Common front?

As we document in our new book, Canada First, Not Canada Alone, even if Canada’s suspicions of Mexico about trade matters aren’t out of the ordinary, they must be considered against the notion that in dealing with the U.S., there can be strength in numbers

.
The author’s book on Canadian foreign policy. (Public Domain)

Throughout the early phase of the CUSMA negotiations during the first Trump presidency, Freeland herself was adamant that Canada not abandon Mexico in favour of a bilateral deal.

Rather, she pointedly emphasized the need to work alongside Mexico to present a common front against the Trump administration’s efforts divide its two North American trading partners.

When faced with an overwhelming aggressor, she argued, it’s best not to stand alone.
U.S. made side deal

This position was backed by other ministers as well as by Ottawa’s trade negotiators even as prominent Canadians — including former prime minister Stephen Harper — called for ditching the Mexicans

.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with Donald Trump, not shown, in London in December 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

At first, the Canadian approach appeared to succeed. Freeland herself earned a fearsome reputation among American officials, with Trump attacking her as a “nasty woman.”

Later, however, Canadian negotiators thought they saw an opening and offered the Americans a bilateral deal without notifying their Mexican colleagues.

Not only did Washington reject the offer, American officials approached Mexico City and concluded a separate side deal of their own. This time, it was Canada left unaware.
Warning signs

The threat of being cut out of a trade agreement was more imagined than real — the Trump administration could not replace NAFTA with a bilateral arrangement without congressional approval — but Canada still had to move quickly to restore a trilateral solution.

CUSMA subsequently came into effect on July 1, 2020.

The CUSMA negotiations should offer Ford and the entire Canadian negotiating team a warning.

If Canada is prepared to leave Mexico behind, Canadian officials should be prepared for their Mexican counterparts to do the same. And while it seems right now that the U.S. has problems with Mexico and its management of America’s porous southern border than it does with Ottawa, under the mercurial Trump, the situation can can change in an instant.

It’s therefore probably not in Canada’s interest to throw Mexico under the bus.

SEE

Danielle Smith '1,000 per cent' in favour of ousting Mexico from trilateral trade deal with U.S. and Canada

Authors

Asa McKercher
Hudson Chair in Canada-US Relations, St. Francis Xavier University

Adam Chapnick
Professor of Defence Studies, Royal Military College of Canada
Disclosure statement
Adam Chapnick received funding from the Canadian Defence Academy Research Program to support the research that informs this article.