LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

The U.S., Canada and Mexico signed the same trade document, but each country is calling it something different

It took a couple of years, but the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, was finally signed on Nov. 30.

Or was it?

Let's go back a few steps.

All three leaders U.S. President Donald Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto (who was on his last day on the job) attended this hastily-arranged ceremony during the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  They made speeches, put their signatures on three separate copies of the trade agreement and smiled for the cameras.

There's some work to be done before the USMCA officially replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.  The legislatures in the three participating countries still have to ratify it.

Approval in Canada and Mexico should be relatively straightforward.  The U.S. could be a bit of an issue with the Democrats winning the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, and having a caucus with several left-wing radicals who have negative feelings about Trump's agenda and/or free trade as a principle.

Nevertheless, it should be resolved in short order.

Here's the interesting thing that has been lost in this discussion.  The U.S., Canada and Mexico signed the same document, but each country is calling it something different.

The USMCA, which has been the most commonly used acronym since day one, is the turn-of-phrase that Trump obviously preferred.

In our country, it's going to be known as the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

In Mexico, it's going to be called the Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá, or T-MEC.

Which one is right?

Technically, all of them.

There have been occasions where countries chose to call a trade deal something different in their official government documents and files.  Jim Calder, a Liberal political activist/blogger who used to be involved with the Progressive Conservatives and Conservatives, pointed out a good example.  As he tweeted to me on Nov. 30, "Fun fact. The Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement is called 'Tratado de Libre Comercio Chile-Canadá' in Chile.  Seems it's fairly standard."

He's right.  But it doesn't mean the practise is right.

I can obviously accept different translations for linguistic purposes.  But to call a trade deal something completely different when you cross a border is rather, well, insane.

Why is it being done?

Self-importance, of course.

It's been a long-standing historical tradition and compulsion to put your country's name first on the list, even if it's the last one in the order of signatories.  Canada obviously couldn't handle being in third spot (and the fourth letter) in the agreement, while Mexico came up with an acronym that gives the appearance of one country, rather than three, being part of this deal!

Naturally, it doesn't happen all the time.  The 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement was originally called FTA and later shifted to CUSFTA (or, at times, CAFTA).  The U.S., to its credit, never rearranged this order.

Most people will use USMCA when referring to this trade agreement.

Had the three countries started with either CUSMA or T-MEC being the widely-accepted acronym, this would have been a different discussion.  Since they didn't, it's highly unlikely they will ever become part of our modern vernacular, and will only be occasionally brought up in the dusty offices of trade officials and bureaucrats.

With the exception of this column, and maybe a few other print, radio and TV references, I don't plan to use them, either.  It's the USMCA and that's all there is to it.

Photo Credit: Axios

Troy Media columnist and political commentator Michael Taube was a speechwriter for former prime minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


George Bush Sr. is appropriately eulogized as a great man if not an outstanding president.  Kind, courteous, generous, brave, he was a true gentleman whose career and character stand in stark contrast to today's polarized climate.  But where was the recognition of his decency at the time, rather than abuse that, tame by today's standards, nevertheless contributed to the downward spiral?

I am old enough to remember that in office he was called the worst president ever, as incumbent Republicans infallibly are.  I also remember the 1988 and 1992 election campaigns during which people did not say nice things about George Herbert Walker Bush.

I know politics is a rough business.  And some of the abuse was funny, including Texas Democrat Ann Richards saying "he was born with a silver foot in his mouth" and "He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple."  Besides, you can't really get up on the stump and say my opponent is a fine man, a war hero, wise and kind, now vote the bum out.  Or can you?

I don't know.  But I'd like to see somebody try.  Or rather, to say for all his or her fine qualities my adversary is too confused on policy to be entrusted with power.  Especially as Richards' second insult in particular was terribly unfair, even dishonest.

Bush was of course born to privilege.  Third generation rich and posh; golf's Walker Cup was named for his grandfather George Herbert Walker, then president of the USGA.  But we can't all be born in log cabins.  And instead of trading on privilege, GHWB enrolled in the U.S. Navy during World War II, became its youngest pilot and was shot down and narrowly escaped the fate of some comrades who were captured, executed and eaten (yes, really) by Japanese soldiers.  Instead of using connections to stay safe, Bush went into harm's way when duty called.  One might say he insisted on going back from third to first out of fairness.

After the war, he didn't come home to a life of New England privilege.  Instead he went to Texas to make it on his own.  And did.  You could still deplore his policies, and make the "silver foot" joke.  But really the "third base" crack was nasty and unfair.

Bush was not himself free of partisanship.  One can legitimately debate his campaign's highly effective but polarizing "Willie Horton" ad.  But if Richards disliked privilege so much, why didn't she denounce Ted Kennedy, who really did rely on accidents of birth to achieve fame.  And also behaved horribly toward women.

One would not dwell on Bush' undistinguished record as president at his funeral.  But he wasn't a great leader.  After winning a landslide on Reagan's departing coattails, the GOP's fourth landslide and fifth win in six elections, he agreed to a tax increase and the Republican party has been fighting the odds presidentially ever since.  But whatever its policy or partisan drawbacks, even this tax-raising decision stemmed from the commendable habitual generous impulse to compromise and share that earned Bush Sr. the youthful nickname "Have half" because he would always share candy bars or cookies with other kids.

So his career proves that outstanding character does not necessarily mean great political leadership.  But I wouldn't personally trade the former for the latter.  Nor is there any guarantee that you can.

Acton may be half right, in that great men are not necessarily good men.  Certainly all great persons have the capacity to be hard at need, which means someone like Churchill probably often wasn't fun to be around.  And I can think of successful politicians who were skunks, like Bill Clinton.  But bad men are often bad leaders, for instance Andrew Johnson.  Likewise, some politicians of profoundly mixed character are undone by their bad not good side, like Richard Nixon, while some truly fine men were also great leaders.

Here I think of Ronald Reagan and hope not to be showered with rotten vegetables, shoes and ugly names.  One can, I trust, admire a man without applauding his policy views or actual policies.  Or even concede that some things he did worked better than one expected without being obliged to grovel or cross the floor.  Even now.

It's getting harder. The New York Times' David Leonhardt managed to semi-praise Bush in a polarizing way, declaring him a true conservative because he raised taxes.  I'm a bit tired of liberals telling me true conservatism is liberalism.  Sure, it begins with a generous concession that some conservatives actually want good results.  But then it begs the question whether liberal means actually achieve those results, as though that were not precisely what we were debating.  Or should be debating, rather than who's a more odious cretin.  Which unfortunately is what his opponents said about Bush back in 1988 and 1992, whatever they may be saying now.

The long and muddy road in American politics from 1992 to 2016 and on to the present bears the footprints of many who have helped lower the tone.  And while I can think of many that belong to liberals, like Democrats who rallied round Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky then leapt snarling at Brett Kavanaugh, conservatives and Republicans have also found ways to be nasty and unintelligent.  I'll just cite Obama "birthers" to prove I can actually think of an example, and admit to it.

So I think it is fitting to bid farewell to George Herbert Walker Bush the public man by saying that if we think there are far too few like him in politics today, let's try to be nicer to them when they appear.

Photo Credit: E! News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.