New Nafta Leaves Winners and Losers Across North America

By 

Erik Wasson, Josh Wingrove, and Eric Martin

12 December 2019

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-12/new-nafta-leaves-winners-and-losers-across-north-america?

USMCA marks the political win for Trump as he seeks re-election

Economic impact of USMCA for the U.S. expected to be limited

Companies, workers, and lawmakers in three countries have spent the past year in limbo awaiting final touches on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free-trade agreement. Now they have a better sense of who won -- and who lost.

The accord awaits a vote next week in the U.S. House of Representatives, where Democrats successfully wrung last-minute revisions to ensure its passage. The U.S. Senate plans to vote in 2020, while legislatures in Mexico and Canada will also have to ratify the updated agreement.

While the so-called USMCA deal marks a political win for President Donald Trump as he seeks re-election, the overall benefit to U.S. GDP is small: a 0.35 % increase in the agreement’s sixth year, according to the official U.S. estimates. Yet, like all trade deals, this one creates winners and losers in the business community. The countries’ political leaders, steel industries and online shoppers stand to benefit, while U.S. drug companies, Mexican businesses, Canadian dairy farmers come off second-best.

 The Winners: Trump, Pelosi, Trudeau, Online Shoppers

U.S. agricultural exports: U.S. dairy and poultry get new market access to Canada, and there are some gains for wheat and alcoholic beverages. The boost is small, but farmers are hoping that progress one trade agreement portends an end to the trade war with China.

Internet companies: The USMCA has a new digital trade section that will help data-intensive internet firms avoid onerous data storage and taxation requirements. The industry beat back a last-minute attempt to remove liability protections for companies like Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Facebook, Inc. and Twitter, Inc. for content posted by users.

Online shoppers and Amazon.com, Inc: The deal will raise Canada and Mexico’s de-minimis levels, or the threshold above which consumers pay tax on a cross-border shipment. This means, for instance, that Canadians will now be able to buy more online, tax-free.

The U.S. firms: Business groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute pushed hard for all parties to get on board because they wanted to eliminate the possibility, however remote, that Trump would end free trade in North America. The boost to business confidence could mean the economic benefit from enacting the deal exceeds expectations. The Business Roundtable, which represents U.S. CEOs, endorsed the USMCA on Wednesday, though it raised concerns about weaker intellectual property protections and new labor-enforcement mechanisms.

U.S. President Donald Trump: Less than an hour before House Democrats said they plan to vote on Trump’s trade deal, they presented articles of impeachment against him. Finalizing this deal gives Trump a much needed political win as he fights off impeachment and runs for re-election in 2020.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: The country had a few red-line issues, including maintaining so-called Chapter 19 dispute panels contained in the old Nafta, which U.S. negotiators wanted to kill but conceded to keep. One of Canada’s big concessions was agreeing to raise patent protections for biologic drugs, but this was removed from the final version. That means Canada got one of its core goals and won’t have to follow through on one of its main concessions.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador: While Mexico’s private sector is worried about some part of the deal -- including the process for labor complaints -- AMLO emerged as mostly a winner. Just finalizing the deal means that AMLO was able to preserve free trade with the U.S., the country’s largest commercial partner. Failure to do so, and having Trump withdraw from Nafta, could have been catastrophic for the stagnant Mexican economy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Pelosi told her caucus that in the final talks, Democrats ate the “lunch” of Trump’s trade negotiators. Democrats got most of what they wanted. Pelosi set up a working group to ensure that a range of voices -- from Alabama moderate Terri Sewell to Connecticut liberal Rosa DeLauro -- could be heard. The talks got bogged down at times, but the consensus-building gave her most vulnerable members a way to show voters they’re working on more than impeaching Trump.

Rural Democrats: Democrats who represent districts that Trump won in 2016 -- people like Collin Peterson and Angie Craig of Minnesota, as well as Cindy Axne and Abby Finkenauer of Iowa -- needed the USMCA badly. Farmers are suffering from trade wars and blamed Democrats for not passing the USMCA. This removes liability for them as they seek re-election next year.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer: Trump’s top trade negotiator is the most popular government official in Washington right now. He set out to build a new U.S. trade consensus and it looks like he largely succeeded in creating a deal that most Republicans and Democrats can get behind, all while coping with Trump’s erratic negotiating style. He’ll need that tailwind as he tries to finalize a trade deal with China that has even higher stakes for the U.S. economy.

The Losers: Drugmakers, Mexican Businesses, Canadian Dairy Farmers

Drug manufacturers: The major drug-industry groups, PhRMA and BIO, are against the deal, and the U.S. Chamber said it is “disappointed” in the drug provisions. The USMCA as originally negotiated by Trump would have established 10 years of data protection for biologic drugs. That’s lower than the 12 years in the U.S. but would have required Canada and Mexico to provide more protection, likely raising drug prices. That provision was removed at the last minute at the insistence of Democrats who are working to lower drug prices in the U.S. Tom Donohue, CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that with the changes, “the only beneficiaries will be foreign governments and consumers who will continue to free-ride on the benefits of American research into new cures.”

Cross-border corporations: The new deal mostly eliminates Chapter 11 dispute-settlement panels, which were often an avenue for companies to sue governments over policy decisions. The new deal will give governments more leeway to make changes, even if it pulls the rug out from under a business.

Mexican businesses: The private sector was upset that Mexico gave up a lot in the final negotiation for little in return, beyond the preservation of free trade. Gustavo de Hoyos, head of the business chamber Coparmex, said the advice of Mexican businesses wasn’t sufficiently heeded. He compared the deal to the 1848 Mexican-American War when Mexico lost California and parts of New Mexico and Arizona. Chief negotiator Jesus Seade responded that he was in frequent contact with business representatives. The main concern is that new labor provisions could leave Mexican factories vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits.

Canadian dairy farmers: One of Canada’s big bargaining chips was trading away a slice of its protected dairy market, which is a problem in all the country’s trade talks. The government announced C$1.75 billion ($1.3 billion) in compensation to dairy farmers for two other trade deals and pledged similar support once USMCA takes effect.

U.S. ranchers: Cattle producer group R-CALF USA criticized the deal, saying the failure to restore country of origin labeling or COOL, on beef allows imported supplies to continue undercutting U.S. ranchers.

Canadian and U.S. aluminum industries: Associations in both countries expressed their disappointment -- the Aluminium Association of Canada said leaving melting and pouring rules out of the deal would make Mexico “more or less China’s North American backyard to dispose of the products of its overcapacity.” The American Primary Aluminum Association said it will allow China and Russia to flood North America with cheap metal. The Mexican Aluminum Association countered that the country doesn’t import raw aluminum from China and won’t need to as long as the region remains a competitive market option.

GOP free traders: Free-market politicians like Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, are unhappy because the deal imposes new rules and wage requirements. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also said he is disappointed, but he is still expected to usher the pact through the Senate. The fact the deal will pass shows how much Trump has reversed traditional GOP trade policy.

Environmental groups: The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council is speaking out against the agreement. Environmentalists wanted climate-change provisions in the USMCA, something Democrats concluded was not going to happen under Trump.

Mixed Bag: U.S. Workers, Auto Industry, Steelmakers

The U.S. workers: The AFL-CIO supports the USMCA as an improvement for U.S. workers but the machinists’ union opposes it. The deal aims to enhance the unionization of employees in that country, with the goal of ending a “race to the bottom” for manufacturing workers. The U.S. jobs that went to Mexico under the original Nafta isn’t coming back, however. The United Auto Workers union said, “much more work remains to fight against the offshoring of jobs and the economic inequality that has plagued our country for so long.”

U.S. and Canadian auto industry: For cars to be exempt from tariffs, they must have higher content from North America and a percentage of each vehicle must be made by workers making an average of $16 per hour -- a provision that will help higher-wage regions. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the deal will increase the production of U.S. auto parts and decrease the production of U.S. vehicles. The new auto provisions could raise the prices of new cars, which could deter consumers. General Motors Co., however, said it is pleasing to see the USMCA moving forward.

Steel industry: Steel companies had been pressing officials to include a “melted, smelted and poured” requirement that 70% of the raw metal used in automotive parts originate in Mexico, Canada or the U.S. The deal’s final language agreed for this to be phased in over seven years for steel parts.

— With assistance by Shawn Donnan, Jenny Leonard, Joe Deaux, Josh Eidelson, Ari Natter, and Michael Hirtzer

SIPRI: Weapons boom shows no signs of slowing

Armaments production worldwide is continuing full speed ahead. According to a new study by a Swedish think tank, the 100 biggest weapons companies have once again increased their sales, with the US leading the way.

https://www.dw.com/en/sipri-weapons-boom-shows-no-signs-of-slowing/a-51581262

The world's 100 largest weapons producers and military contractors saw another boost in global sales last year, with total sales of $420 billion (€379 billion) — some 4.6% higher than in 2017.

2018 sales were even a whole 47% above those of 2002, according to a new study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on the global weapons industry. Because of the lack of reliable data, the study did not include China.

According to the study, released Monday, the increase in sales was due mainly to the five largest US arms companies. But European companies also saw a rise, though only of 0.7%, selling some $102 billion (around €92 billion) in arms and military equipment in 2018.

Russian companies, however, saw their sales figures drop by 0.4%, with sales last year of $36.2 billion (€32.5 billion).

The US in front

The study shows that the world's 10 largest arms companies increased their market share by 5.8% to $210 billion. For the first time since 2002, the five biggest armaments manufacturers were once again all from the United States, making up 35% of the sales of the world's 100 largest arms companies.

US firm Lockheed Martin is still unchallenged in the first place ($47,260 billion). The company increased its sales in 2018 by 5.2%, representing 11% of the sales of the 100 biggest firms. The rise was largely the result of the sale of its F-35 fighter jet to the governments of the United States and other countries.

The second-largest company, Boeing, achieved sales to the tune of $29.2 billion. According to a paper from the Trump administration cited by SIPRI, its rise in sales resulted mainly from an "inter-state strategic competition."

The paper goes on to say that the US government sees its two biggest challengers as Russia and China, and that it remains committed to its 2017 pledge to expand its military weapons program.

A number of arms companies also underwent fusions in 2017, which resulted in increased sales a year later. "The spate of mergers and acquisitions indicates that US arms companies expect the program to be technically challenging," said the SIPRI study.

The UK doing good business

Twenty-seven of the biggest armaments companies worldwide come from Europe, with the leaders in Western Europe based in the United Kingdom and France. The biggest British player is the mega-corporation BAE Systems, which employs more than 83,000 workers.

British companies saw a 2018 turnover of $35.1 billion, while French companies had sales of $23.2 billion. German arms manufacturers reported sales of $8.4 billion, a drop of 3.8% in their share of the international armaments industry.

The two trans-European companies Airbus and MBDA together achieved sales of $15.4 billion.

Russia catching up

Russian companies had a turnover of $36.2 billion, thus making up 8.6% of worldwide weapons production. Despite the slight setback in 2018, their share of worldwide sales have grown continually since 2009, according to SIPRI.

"This was mainly because of Russia's increased spending on arms procurement linked to the implementation of a major military modernization plan for 2011–20 and, to a lesser extent, because of increases in arms exports. Five companies based in Russia reported increases," the study said.

Arms manufacturers from another eight countries — Israel, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Australia, Canada and Singapore — round out the list of the top 100, representing $36.2 billion in sales.

SIGUE EL CHANTAJE

Después de la visita del fiscal de Estados Unidos a México, William Barr, el presidente Trump ha decidido que “temporalmente” no designará a los cárteles mexicanos del narcotráfico como organizaciones terroristas, según sus palabras, haciendo caso a la solicitud del presidente López Obrador a quien respeta y con quien tiene una buena colaboración. En cambio, se va a intensificar la cooperación entre los dos países para combatir a los cárteles.

En primer lugar, tal como sucedió con la amenaza de imponer aumentos de aranceles a todos los productos que México exporta a Estados Unidos, si nuestro país no se convertía en el “muro” contra la inmigración indocumentada; ahora, la designación de terroristas a los cárteles, sólo se detiene temporalmente, en tanto México asume más costos y da más concesiones en la ya larguísima “guerra contra el narcotráfico” que libra, sin que el gobierno norteamericano asumiera ningún compromiso, como por ejemplo reducir el flujo ilegal de armas al país, o el de dinero que cruza por la frontera para financiar a los cárteles; o menos aún, el de disminuir el consumo de drogas de su población, lo que constituye el motor principal de todo este negocio.

Pero López Obrador, otra vez, dice que es un triunfo que algo que no existía, es decir la denominación de terroristas a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga, siga sin existir, por el momento; y que a cambio de que ese algo que no existe se mantenga así, nuestro país seguirá rindiendo recursos humanos, materiales y financieros en favor de la “guerra contra el narcotráfico” que exigen las autoridades estadounidenses; insistimos, sin ningún compromiso explícito de su parte para asumir sus responsabilidades en este problema.

Es decir, el chantaje de Trump al débil y asustadizo gobierno de López Obrador sigue funcionando (y seguirá, pues la espada de Damócles de la designación de los cárteles como terroristas, así como la aplicación de los aranceles permanece, pues se les ha detenido “temporalmente”); y para colmo, como cereza en el pastel, y tal como lo anticipamos en este blog, el gobierno mexicano tuvo que aceptar que Evo Morales saliera del país, con el pretexto de una consulta médica, hacia Cuba y posteriormente a la toma de protesta de Alberto Fernández en Argentina (aún por confirmar), sin que se sepa si regresará o no a su exilio dorado en México.

En política no hay coincidencias, y el que Morales saliera del país después de la visita de Barr, sólo puede leerse como parte del pago mexicano al estadounidense, para que éste no realice acciones unilaterales en el tema del narcotráfico, por el momento.

Patética debilidad del gobierno mexicano ante el de Trump, que el presidente de Estados Unidos ha aprovechado y lo seguirá haciendo, obligando al mexicano a hacer lo que se le ordena. Muy pronto podremos ver quizás que México disminuya su apoyo a Venezuela o que comience a cerrarle las puertas al capital chino en nuestro país: Todo es posible, dado que López Obrador ha demostrado que está subordinado a Trump, y éste no va a dejar pasar la oportunidad de seguir exprimiéndolo todo lo que pueda (seguirá con el enorme yacimiento de litio que hay en Sonora).

Y por supuesto, hay que sumarle el papel nefasto del canciller Ebrard en todo esto, que con cada amenaza de Trump, aprovecha para ganar más espacio político dentro del mediocre gabinete de López Obrador, gana más puntos ante Washington como el candidato confiable para 2024, al jugar el papel de “asustador oficial de AMLO”, con lo que obtiene de él más concesiones en su favor y para el gobierno de Washington; y se pavonea como el “salvador de la patria” después de torcer todas las concesiones que hace a los gringos en nombre de México, como si fueran grandes logros para el país.

The Left Is Finally Winning the War of Ideas

DEC 03, 2019

Lee Camp

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-left-is-finally-winning-the-war-of-ideas/

Good ideas are like viruses. They grow and spread despite our best efforts to stop them. And yes, our bulbous, awkward species does indeed work very hard to catch and kill good ideas.

At the time I write this column, the first Democratic primaries are approaching with the zest and excitement of an unavoidable bowel movement. Even if you read this a year or two or 10 from now, primaries will still be advancing toward you. As sure as the universe expands, the primaries approach. The moment we finish one election season, another is on the horizon.

This serves two purposes. First, it continuously makes voters think that we matter, that we have a lot of sway over the course this country takes. We don’t. (Well, not as much as we think we do.) And the second purpose is to fill the mainstream media airwaves with vacuous political play-by-play for two straight years. For example, by covering the three-point shift in Pete Buttigieg’s likability amongst Iowans (which matters as much as a three-point shift in the average Iowan’s concern about getting trichinosis from undercooked anchovies), the corporate media cogs can avoid talking about the exploitation of American workers or the massive debt crushing most people or the environmental collapse gripping the planet or the highly advanced, highly illegal surveillance state in which we live.

Our electoral politics is a beautiful smokescreen for the ruling elite.

But no matter what happens in these overtly rigged Democratic National Committee primaries (See: media manipulation, voter suppression, corporate spending, super delegates, unverifiable voting machines, etc. etc. etc.), those of us who care about the world and care about our fellow human beings are winning the war of ideas. Simply take a look at the ideas that are dominating the Democratic presidential race, even though the corporate media has tried to ignore these solutions, attack them, dispute them, and then ignore them all over again.

1) Medicare for All

This is the idea that if you’re 5 years old and you break your arm, no matter how little you get paid at your child labor job, you shouldn’t have to fix your broken arm yourself with a papier-mâché cast made from soiled Kleenex and bird poop. Medicare for All was initially put forward by the Green Party and left-wing activists, and now it’s a mainstream discussion. The idea perseveres despite interminable attacks from the moneyed and the well-heeled as they sit neck-deep in mountains of top-shelf health care. (I hear many of them get young blood transfusions just for kicks on the weekend.) The rich continue to espouse one of the worst systems in the developed world as if it’s somehow justifiable that two-thirds of Americans who declare bankruptcy each year do so partially because of health care costs.

2) The Green New Deal

This is an economic proposal that would give a majority of Americans a job and switch to renewable energy, among other things. Basically, it would solve both our fossil fuel death spiral and unemployment problems in one fell swoop. It was put forward initially by the Green Party and left-wing activists, but then it quickly rose to the level of mainstream discussion, resulting in a bill by Congress. This is an impressive feat even though there are criticisms of the Democratic rewriting of the Green New Deal (such as its failure to address the military-industrial complex, which happens to be the largest polluter in the known world, but maybe we’ll find a lost tribe in the Amazon that runs a few hundred thousand warships on diesel and then our Pentagon will drop down to the second-biggest polluter).

3) Legalizing Marijuana

If I have to explain what this is to you, then you clearly haven’t turned on a television in the past 50 years nor caught a glimpse of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” (the show, the movie, the action figure, the comic book, the video game, the candy or the song). The legalization of cannabis in all its nifty forms has rapidly spread across the country—which is not just crucial to people who have gained tremendous medical benefits from cannabis but also crucial for anybody who needs to get viciously baked in order to watch the impeachment hearings (which is the only legitimate way to watch the impeachment hearings).

Marijuana has become so widely accepted that Joe Biden recently became a laughingstock when he called weed a “gateway drug.” Yes, grandpa, the evil weed is a gateway drug, and rock music is the devil’s work, and dancing with a girl before marriage can cause one’s phallus to fall off. … Not to mention, who is Joe Biden to tell us not to get a little loopy at the end of a long day? How many prescription meds must it take that guy to simply put on his pants each morning?

4) $15 Minimum Wage

I don’t have to tell you why this matters. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. You know what you can buy with $7 these days? A Ding-Dong out of the vending machine. So maybe, after a worker has labored for 39 straight hours, he can tether all the Ding-Dong packages together into a rudimentary raft that will allow him to float downriver to somewhere that treats him better. At $7.25 an hour, no one can possibly get by. I did the math: You’d have to work for 3700 years just to afford a ticket to the Mötley Crüe reunion tour. (And they’re not even good. Imagine if you wanted tickets to see someone good.)

5) Distrust of Mainstream Corporate Media

Even if you’re one of these certifiable nut-bags who still turns on CNN or Fox News every day all day, you still understand that you’re not getting the full truth. You might think you’re getting a piece of it, but not all of it. … Also, you should be euthanized.

(Okay, maybe not euthanized, but anyone who leaves cable news on in the background just to feel warm and cozy should at the very least be left on a faraway island to live out their days. If you’re one of them, please stop it. Corporate media crap is not the audio version of your childhood blanket. It’s pathetic PROPAGANDA. … Sorry to yell.)

6) Distrust of U.S.-Backed Coups and War Games

Most Americans are opposed to endless war now. We’re opposed to harming and killing so many millions in the name of propping up our bloated, belligerent empire that eats entire nations and then vomits up new KFC franchise locations. Obviously, the growing disgust among most of the country has not managed to stop the bombs from falling, but it’s a start.

I’m sure you don’t have the time to read the entire list of ideas that were once considered far left and are now mainstream vibrant discussions—abolishing ICE, holding police accountable, distrusting the intelligence community AKA the surveillance state, questioning capitalism, ending factory farming, confronting the extreme climate crisis, etc. etc. Sure, our elections are rigged in favor of the two corporate Wall Street-funded parties. And yes, our media is owned and operated by the largest, most aggressive corporations in the world leaving little to no room on the air for the anti-war activists offering free hugs and senseless acts of kindness. But that’s why it’s all the more impressive that in so many areas, we are winning the seemingly endless battle for the mindscape of our country.

Lee Camp’s new book “Bullet Points and Punch Lines” with a foreword by Chris Hedges is available for pre-sale at LeeCampBook.com. This column is based on a monologue Lee Camp wrote and performed on his TV show “Redacted Tonight.

Most countries will rebuild a world order the US can’t stop

By Mu Lu Source: Global Times Published: 2019/12/4

Political chaos has become a new normal for the US. As the presidential election approaches, confusion has worsened while the country's foreign policy has become the focus of political games between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. This has severely restricted US foreign policy from being rational, and has victimized China-US ties.

The impeachment inquiry against US President Donald Trump launched by the Democrats has intensified friction between the two political parties, and the Republicans have fought back. 

The Republican base on Tuesday drove fundraising to a pro-Trump super political action committee America First Action, which is dropping $2.26 million in ads against "27 Democratic House members the group sees as most politically vulnerable in the impeachment fight," according to an AXIOS report. But the move could "get the base even more fired up."

Both parties upgraded their moves and countermeasures to knock off the other, but have only drawn themselves into a vicious cycle.

Trump described China as a strategic competitor and launched a trade war against it. He has taken advantage of the trade war to create an image that he is fighting for Americans, and thus to gain more votes. As the two countries strive for a phase one trade deal, Trump once again hinted to delay the deal as he likes "the idea of waiting until after the election for the China deal." 

Where did that "idea" come from? Maybe it was from the polarized US Congress. Both parties are using China as a token to gain the upper hand. Hence, Congress won't let Trump make a trade deal with China easily. 

From the so-called Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to the so-called Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, when one party interferes in China's domestic affairs, the others won't allow itself to be left behind. 

In this context, two forces in the US are colluding. One force is the anti-China group represented by Republican senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who use anti-China legislation and statements to enhance their own political careers. The other is an anti-Trump group who opposes anything Trump supports, including hindering him from reaching a trade deal with China. 

This is what US politics is really like. We can predict right now that the 2020 election campaign will be unprecedentedly fierce. It is pathetic for Democrats and Republicans to get where they are. 

Both parties have gone too far, and so has Washington's foreign policy. In addition to the trade wars it launched against China, India, and Japan, the US has pointed its tariff gun at its ally France and Latin American "friends" Brazil and Argentina, not to mention its reckless policies toward Europe and Russia. 

Given such a mindset of the US, not only China-US trade talks but also many other international agendas have been affected. After World War II, the US grasped the opportunity to establish a US-dominated world order, but it has also been damaging the system by breaking rules. More impact on the already fragile world order is coming.

As most countries pursue stability and development, they will join hands to rebuild the world order. It will take a long time to shape a new order, which will certainly be different from the US-dominated one. If the US doesn't stop harming the world and join rulemaking, some other countries will make the rules.  

Trump’s Plan To Fight a Terror War Against the Cartels

by Ron Paul Posted on December 03, 2019 https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2019/12/02/trumps-plan-to-fight-a-terror-war-against-the-cartels/

The 50-year US war on drugs has been a total failure, with hundreds of billions of dollars flushed down the drain and our civil liberties whittled away fighting a war that cannot be won. The 20-year “war on terror” has likewise been a gigantic US government disaster: hundreds of billions wasted, civil liberties scorched, and a world far more dangerous than when this war was launched after 9/11.

So what to do about two of the greatest policy failures in US history? According to President Trump and many in Washington, the answer is to combine them!

Last week Trump declared that, in light of an attack last month on US tourists in Mexico, he would be designating Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Asked if he would send in drones to attack targets in Mexico, he responded, “I don’t want to say what I’m going to do, but they will be designated.” The Mexican president was quick to pour cold water on the idea of US drones taking out Mexican targets, responding to Trump’s threats saying “cooperation, yes; interventionism, no.”

Trump is not alone in drawing the wrong conclusions from the increasing violence coming from the drug cartels south of the border. A group of US Senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urging that the US slap sanctions on the drug cartels in response to the killing of Americans.

Do these Senators really believe that facing US sanctions these drug cartels will close down and move into legitimate activities? Sanctions don’t work against countries and they sure won’t work against drug cartels.

A recent editorial in the conservative Federalist publication urges President Trump to launch “unilateral, no-permission special forces raids” into Mexico like the US did into Pakistan to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda!

I am sure the military-industrial complex loves this idea! Another big war to keep Washington rich at the expense of the rest of us. And the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force can even be trotted out to fight this brand new “terror war”!

Perhaps unintentionally, however, this sudden push to look at the Mexican drug cartels as we did ISIS and al-Qaeda do make sense. After all, the rise of the drug cartels and the rise of the terror cartels have both been due to bad US policy. It was the US invasion of Iraq based on neocon lies that led to the creation of ISIS and expansion of al-Qaeda in the Middle East and it was the US war on drugs that led to the rise of the drug cartels in Mexico.

Here’s another suggestion: maybe instead of doing the same things that do not work, we might look at the actual cause of the problems. The US war on drugs makes drugs enormously profitable to Mexican suppliers eager to satisfy a ravenous US market. A study last year by the CATO Institute found that with the steady decriminalization and legalization of marijuana across the United States, the average US Border Patrol agent seized 78 percent less marijuana in the fiscal year 2018 than in FY 2013.

Instead of declaring war on Mexico, perhaps the answer to the drug cartel problem is to take away their incentives by ending the war on drugs. Why not try something that actually works?

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.