And Pablo Gómez:Once in the press conference I noted a subtle difference that is worrying. Since the primary election campaign in the United States I warned about Obama's protectionist tendencies. It's a political strategy for the African-American to stay on good terms with one of the Democrats' most important electoral clients: the unions. Obama even said that, as president, he would renegotiate Nafta. He then went about qualifying his offer. Nevertheless, there remained the promise.
In the press conference he was asked about the topic. Obama slipped around it. He talked about the importance of international commerce to the present economic crisis. He said it wasn't the time to have protectionist positions. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the labor and environmental clauses should be revised to make them more compatible with the present challenges. Calderón then stepped in to subtly express that although the environmental and labor issues were important, now wasn't the moment to open negotiations that could put in danger the achievements with respect to commerce that the two Nafta nations have reached.
Lastly, Nafta causes some harm in both countries, but there doesn't exist a permanent political mechanism for revision adjustment, of a trilateral character, that could alone take into account the respective economies and the complex relationship to resolve the problems, such as trans-border transport or agricultural goods , so that it wasn't only the decisions of the US that formed from the facts such a complex and eventful link. Beyond that, the US has never admitted responsibility in terms of compensating differences. There's no initial stage for an agreement here, either.
Mexico doesn't want conflict with the US. That country, for its part, says it wants to defends itself on the southern border and in some ways that's it prerogative, although it can't admit to the rights violations or to being a bad neighbor. Obama, nevertheless, doesn't have the solutions, at least not now.