NAFTA Memo

Memorandum

320 Washington St.

Easton MA, 02375

27 April 2017

From: Caitlin Melaugh

Reply to: Caitlin Melaugh

To: US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer

Thru: The Office of the United States Trade Representative

Subject: The Importance of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement

What is NAFTA?

A.    The North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement is an agreement between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. NAFTA began in 1994, and provides for many tariffs to be eliminated from products traded between the countries. President George HW Bush negotiated the trade agreement and President Clinton implemented it.

B.     NAFTA reshaped economic relations between the three countries, and helped North America be a strong competitor in the global sphere.

a.       This agreement hoped to assist in Mexico’s economic growth in particular. Mexican President at the time Carlos Salinas de Gortiari saw this agreement as a way for Mexico to, “export goods, not people”.[1]

C.     Mexico and Canada have now become the two countries that the United States most commonly exports to.

a.       Estimates conclude that about 200,000 jobs rely on direct trade with Mexico and Canada.[2]

b.      On the other hand, it is estimated that about 600,000 jobs have been lost due to NAFTA’s implementation. However, with the change in times these jobs likely would have disappeared anyways.

What Does Trump Want?

A.    Following his inauguration Trump intended to reopen NAFTA to negotiations with Mexico and Canada. He threatens to withdraw from the agreement for a, “better deal” for US Companies.

B.     Trump has already withdrawn from the Trans Pacific Partnership deal. This deal had not been ratified by congress yet but was negotiated by President Obama. Trump argued that this would be harmful to US workers

a.       Since it was not ratified yet there will be no immediate effect on economic policies upon withdrawal.

b.      Since Trump did not hesitate to withdraw from the TPP he would likely stick to his word and withdraw from NAFTA if he saw necessary.

Why Should We Keep NAFTA?

A.    Economists agree that NAFTA has benefited the North American economies since its creation. Regional trade greatly increased.

a.       Trade increased from $290 billion in 1993 to $1.1 trillion in 2016.[3]

b.      It is difficult to decipher however, what other effects contributed to this increase, such as the influence of technology development.

B.     Economists concluded that manufacturing in the United States was already struggling prior to NAFTA, and it is not because of its implementation that there is trouble.

C.     We need to keep the more open barriers between Canada and Mexico for free trade within North America. Prices of many goods will greatly increase with a withdrawal from NAFTA.

D.    It is also important to keep friendly relations with our two border countries. With NAFTA, we have a block of good relations within North America, but a withdrawal could lead to not needing to keep up these good relationships, and future conflict.

E.     NAFTA should be amended and updated for inclusion of current issues we face today such as energy, border security, and immigration reform, but the United States should not withdraw from NAFTA. The original agreement was created a very long time ago and it should be regularly updated to include more current troubles between the countries, but ultimately, an agreement of some sorts must be kept with our two border countries for stability in the region.

a.       A complete withdraw would upend years of peaceful relations, and destabilize alliances.

Thank you for your time.

Reference

Diamond, Jeremy, and Bash, Dana, “Trump Signs order withdrawing from the TPP, reinstate       ‘Mexico City policy’ on abortion,” CNN Politics, January 24, 2017.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-withdrawal     trumps-first-executive-action-monday-sources-say/

McBride, James, and Aly Sergie, Mohammed, “NAFTA’s Economic Impact,” Council on Foreign          Relations, January 24, 2017. http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790

---

[1]James McBride, and Mohammed Aly Sergie, “NAFTA’s Economic Impact,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 24, 2017. http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790

[2] James McBride, and Mohammed Aly Sergie, “NAFTA’s Economic Impact,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 24, 2017. http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790

[3] James McBride, and Mohammed Aly Sergie, “NAFTA’s Economic Impact,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 24, 2017. http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790

United States and NAFTA

                                                                                                                       320 Washington Street

                                                                                                           Easton, MA

                                                                                                           

           02357

                                                                                                            7 April 2017

From: Matthew Macy

To: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

Thru: U.S. Department of State; Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

Subj: American Trade Policy Within NAFTA

1.     The North American Free Trade Association has provided the United States with the ability to increase trade with both Mexico and Canada since its inception in 1994. Trade has gone up and been eased with this alliance, and the trade deal has worked well for the American economy. Businesses have witnessed great benefits since NAFTA was approved by the Clinton administration, and our neighbors to the north and south have had economic improvements as well.

2.     On the minds of some economists and citizens is that the United States has not been ‘winning’, so to say, in this trade deal. Jobs have left to relocate south of the border, making Americans unemployed and looking for work. The auto sector has seen a large decline in jobs, most of which have either gone to Mexico or become automated. In addition, businesses have been taking advantage of this, as they can threaten to create jobs outside the nation for lower wages to save money and improve their profit margin.

a.      The number of Mexican auto jobs has tripled in the two decades since NAFTA was incorporated, from roughly 120,000 jobs up to over half a million.

b.     American statistics show a steep decline as well, with a reported loss of 350,000 jobs in the auto sector.

c.      In addition, the trade balance between the United States and Mexico has slid precipitously- from a $1.4 billion surplus at the time of signing to a $54 billion deficit, as of 2014.

3.     Removing loopholes which big businesses can utilize to cut costs and force Americans out of a job should be a key part of NAFTA in order to assist citizens who are seeking employment and/or job security. Re-negotiating a clause or section into NAFTA that would apply safeguards to American jobs would keep workers confident in their employment opportunity and wage stability, as well as create an economic boost for families that can now spend more money in the national economy.

4.     Implementing change to aid the average citizen who works for or benefits off of trade through the NAFTA agreement would improve lives, job stability, and earnings. Keeping the American consumer happy and able to spend their hard-earned dollars stimulates the national economy and promotes the positives of staying on as a member of NAFTA.

Thank for your time and consideration on this important matter.

Economy Memo

320 Washington St,

North Easton, MA 02357

19 April 2017

From: Orlando Manfredi 

To: US Trade Representitive;  Robert Lighthizer

Thru: The Office of the United States Trade Representitive

Subj: A Rebuttal of Anti- Free Trade Tactics

1 The Campaign Pitch 

President Trump during his campaign ran on the promise that he would bring manufacturing back to the United States and would do this through ensuring companies "buy American and hire American" as well as a liberal use of tariffs on nations that out compete the United States in terms of unskilled manufacturing products. Trump also promised that he would renegotiate all free trade agreements to ensure that they benefit America primarily over all others involved. This platform proved to be fairly successful on the campaign trail but when actually implemented numerous experts have come out against it. 

2 The Policy

Historically President Trump has had the most grievances with China and Mexico, and has stated that he will retaliate against the two countries with a blanket tariff or VAT tax of 35-45% and that he would renegotiate NAFTA. Trump has also been negotiating with individual companies who threaten to move production elsewhere to remain or increase their presence in the United States. This has been done with both Carrier and Samsung. 

3 The Problems

In 2015 the US imported $303 billion worth of goods from Mexico and according to the US Chamber of Commerce there are 6 million US jobs that require that there is free and open trade between the two countries. Tariffs in the end leave the brunt of the tax increase on consumers and not the companies who often times simply alter their pricing models to offset the increase in taxes. Due to the globalized economy many things that would normally be produced in the US would not be able to as a result of not being able to afford the base materials at a competitive price. Trump also proposed applying an even larger tariff on Chinese goods which would logically have an even more devastating impact. If Trump implements a 45% tariff on Chinese goods, economists predict that exports from China would decrease by at least half resulting in a loss of $385 billion worth of goods as of 2016, with little to no means of the United States of picking up the demand that would increase tremendously as a result of such a decrease in supply. 

5 Conclusion

President Trump's plan for increased tariffs will have disasterous consequences as companies will not be able to produce the amount of goods demanded for an affordable price and if global trade is to continue the burden of the increased taxes will ultimatly be shrugged off by companies who have control over thier own goods and onto consumers who are faced with either buying the good at a higher price, finding a domestic equivalient for a high price or simply going without. There is no conceivable way that these tariffs can help the US worker or the US economy.  

Sources

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/26/news/economy/trump-mexico-tariff/

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21711498-whatever-he-thinks-dealmaking-wont-help-mr-trumps-trade-negotiations-donald-trumps-trade

War on Drugs in Colombia

Memorandum

320 Washington St.

Easton MA, 02357

20 April 2017

From: Caitlin Ann Melaugh

Reply To: Caitlin Ann Melaugh

To: Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson

Thru: Office of the Department of State

Subject: The War on Drugs in Colombia

Why is the Drug trade in Colombia a Problem?

A.    Early in the 19170’s, the Colombian cocaine market began to become a rising problem for the United States. This market quickly grew and by the 1980’s became an undeniable serious issue. At that point cocaine was the most common illegal substance to be grown and then illegally trafficked to the United States, and in 2000 the United States led War on Drugs turned Colombia into the largest cocaine producer.

a.       The rapidly growing market is of great concern to keeping drugs off the streets of the United States.

b.      Statistics today prove that half of the world’s cocaine is produced in Colombia, and the United States is the world’s largest consumer of this cocaine.

B.     The increase in the amount of illegal international smuggling also increased the amount of violence present in Colombian society.

C.     Colombian drug lords fight against themselves creating further violence, and campaigned against the government.

a.        Pablo Escobar was leader of the Medellin Cartel and got elected into Colombia’s congress in the early 1980’s. The drug world infiltrated the political culture within Colombia.

b.      Colombia is considered an ally to the United States, and the possibility of drug lords in governmental power is concerning.

D.    President Obama met with the Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, in February 2016. During their meeting, they came to an agreement on a plan they called, Paz Colombia.

a.       This agreement required the United States to send 450 million dollars to Colombia over the next ten years. This money is intended to go towards restoring peace in Colombia, and combat the drug market.

What Needs to Be done?

A.    Drugs in America are a large problem for many of its citizens. As of recent years, cocaine has not seen as much of a dangerous problem as narcotics, however, all drugs are dangerous and must be limited from society. It is not possible to completely remove these drugs from the market but efforts should be made to decrease their availability.

B.     To do this eliminating the coca plant which naturally grows in Colombia, and once refined creates cocaine, is a good place to start. The largest problem in doing this is that about 64,500 families, according to the United Nation’s estimates, rely on this crop as their sole income. Trying to eliminate as much of this crop as possible in Colombia would greatly displace many struggling families.

a.       These families also report to drug manufacturers which have a lot of man power and a plethora of weapons. This could cause great danger to the families.

b.      If we were to replace the crop the farmers produce it could also cause great harm in displacing our own economies with crops grown in the United States.

c.       Therefore, full elimination of the coca plant does not seem realistic.

C.     Another cause for great concern is that we don’t want to use US military force in Colombia to fight against the drug market.

a.       There is no one solution to this problem. Each potential plan has harsh realities attached to it.

D.    The most realistic solution able to be presented in seeking a successful resolution to the Colombian cocaine problem, is to continue further monetary aid at the request of the Colombian government. Only with the Colombian government’s desire to make a change can a realistic transformation in the drug market be made.

a.       The perks of simply providing monetary aid is that we do not need to get our hands dirty on the ground level. It is up to the Colombian government to enforce new regulations and keep the peace.

b.      A negative to this monetary aid is the inability to know exactly where and how the money is being spent. Also, the question arises on why the burden of financial aid to Colombia falls on the United States?

                                                              i.      The United States is the leading consumer of Colombian cocaine. Therefore, we must do something to fix our own problem.

What does this accomplish?

A.    Seeking change in the cocaine production in Colombia is beneficial to the well-being of the citizens of the United States, as well as those negatively affected by the Colombian drug market. Supplying the Colombian government with monetary aid will assist in limiting the amount of cocaine in the market without needing boots on the ground.

Thank you for your time on this important matter

Nigeria/ Boko Haram Memo

320 Washington St,

North Easton, MA 02357

13 April 2017

From: Elif Okan

To: The United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

Thru: The National Security Council

Subj: Helping Nigeria with Boko Haram

Why is Boko Haram a concerning problem in Nigeria?
1.  Boko Haram was first founded in 2002 and was originally supposed to be a school to teach Islam but radicalized in 2009 after the five days of violent protests and riots against a law that was affecting Muslims and motorbike headgear. After the five days of protests resulted in the death of hundreds including Mohammed Yusuf, the leader, they had a drive for revenge and changed from the peaceful local Salafist movement from 2002 to the radical jihad movement using violence and bombs which started in 2009. Boko Haram literally translates to “Western civilization is forbidden” from Arabic and they are a radical jihadist movement that aims to remove the secular Nigerian government and replace it with a Muslim theocracy as well as getting rid of the market-based economy.
2.  Even though Boko Haram is not as well-known as ISIS, Boko Haram is still as dangerous if not more so than ISIS. Boko Haram had made about half as many attacks as ISIS, but they have still killed just as many people as ISIS had in those fewer attacks.

a.     This shows that Boko Haram is just as dangerous as ISIS if not more so for being able to achieve the same amount of deaths as ISIS in half as many attacks but the United States does not see to see Boko Haram as an issue that they need to be concern of like ISIS.

                                               i.     There are many reasons why the United States may not see Boko Haram as big of an issue like ISIS. The main one would be that the United States did not have an impact on Boko Haram, so they do not have an obligation to get involve.

b.     Boko Haram pledged their allegiance to ISIS in March 2015 which shows that they are as big as a danger as ISIS

3. Boko Haram is against western civilization meaning they are against the United States as well. Right now they are not too big and mostly staying in Nigeria/ Africa, but if they become bigger in the future they could be a threat to the United States which is why action should be taken now instead of later as long as the Nigerian government wants help.

What should be done?

      4.  The first thing that should be done is to raise more awareness, so people actually know who Boko Haram is and what they are currently doing because a large group of people do not.

a.     Terrorist groups like ISIS show up in the news a lot, but Boko Haram rarely does which is why ISIS is more well-known than Boko Haram.

b.     In 2014 Boko Haram kidnapped 3 Chibok schoolgirls, and it became known to the public, as soon as it was the United States tried to help by starting to campaign “bring back our girls” on different things like Twitter, Facebook, etc. Even though this did not bring them back at the end, this did help so Boko Haram was more known.

                                               i.     Now Boko Haram are seen as the group that kidnapped schoolgirls, but many in the United States do not know how violence this group is within Africa or even that they existed before the schoolgirl kidnappings

       5. Once Boko Haram and all their wrong doing/ violence are well known in the United States like ISIS is, it would be easier to get the general public’s approval and get involved without having to worry the citizens of the United States getting made for getting involved with Boko Haram.

      6.  The United States should also get the United Nations involve to help Nigeria instead of just trying to help Nigeria alone. Boko Haram is a terrorist group that affects many people. They may not choice to attack major cities in Europe like ISIS, but they did kill just as many people. Boko Haram focuses on Africa which is one of the reasons they are not getting as much attention as other terrorist groups, but that should change.

a.     Nigeria is part of the United Nations so if they ask for help dealing with Boko Haram the United States and the United Nations should help since Boko is dangerous and Nigeria may not be able to deal with them on their own.

                                               i.     If the Nigerian government does not ask the Unites States and/ or the United Nations for help and are fine on their own, then the United States and the United Nations should not get involved but make it care that if the Nigerian government changes their mind, then they will help.

      7.  Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

Bibliography:

- Class Notes from 6 April 2017

American Response to Boko Haram

                                                                                                                       320 Washington Street

                                                                                                           Easton, MA

                                                                                                           

           02357

                                                                                                            7 April 2017

From: Matthew Macy

To: UN Ambassador Nikki Haley

Thru: U.S. Representation to the United Nations

Subj: U.S. and UN Actions against Boko Haram Terror Group

1.     Despite having a large negative effect upon the people and government of Nigeria, the terror group Boko Haram (translated from Arabic as “Western Civilization is Forbidden”) has caused much havoc, violence and death within the Nigerian state. Little has been done by the United States about the issue, and a tougher stance ought to be taken against this group in order to help protect innocent civilians.

2.     Boko Haram was founded in 2002 and was originally a compound and school to teach Islam. It eventually radicalized and turned into its current form around 2009 after riots against a law affecting Muslims and motorbike headgear. They aim to remove the secular Nigerian government and replace it with a Muslim theocracy. They also want to remove as much of the western capitalist ideas and business as possible from the nation. Boko Haram has made less than half as many attacks as ISIS, which is the world’s main terror threat, but they have unfortunately killed almost as many people.

3.     The U.S. has had little influence upon policies against Boko Haram and has not done much to attempt to remedy the problem. The group only gained notoriety after it kidnapped roughly 200 girls from a village in April of 2014 and took them away to a camp or base. Only a few of these girls have been found in the years since this occurred despite the U.S. sending advisors to aid the local police and military in search and rescue. The popular media displayed the American response as a social media campaign, which was called “Bring Back Our Girls”; it failed to bring back the girls. However, it did temporarily raise public awareness of the issue.

4.     The United States should aim to motivate the United Nations and other concerned nations to take a stand against the attacks which Boko Haram has made against the Nigerian people. As they do not care who they kill or where they do it, this group has a higher potential to cause mass casualties via a terror attack than ISIS, but since they do not directly attack the west, Boko Haram receives less attention than they deserve. The UN ought to recognize that this group poses a major threat to member states, and a coalition should be suggested as a means of preventing Boko Haram from expanding or causing more terror amongst the Nigerian people and the state. Boots on the ground and peacekeepers may not be the simplest response at this time, but some action and mobilization would be beneficial for the Nigerians and their neighbors. It would show Boko Haram that their actions are not going unnoticed by the rest of the world and would be a strong message. After President Trump’s strong message via Tomahawk cruise missiles sent to the Syrian regime, a response which gets the world to notice Boko Haram’s atrocities is quite necessary in light of their evil actions against civilians.

5.     Thank you for considering this proposal.

Bibliography:

- https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/14/fact-sheet-us-efforts-assist-nigerian-government-its-fight-against-boko-

- Class Notes from 6 April 2017

North Korea Memo

320 Washington St. 
Easton, MA 02357 

                                                                                                                                 30 March 2017 

From Elif Okan 

To: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson 

Thru: The Department of State 

Subject: Improving North Korea's human right problem 

Reply to: Elif Okan Attn of: Okan 

1. Our current foreign policy with North Korea needs to change. Currently there are too many human right problems in North Korea that no one is trying to stop. We need to change this to help the citizens in North Korea to improve their conditions. Our main focus should be on getting rid of the concentration camps and making it so the citizens living in North Korea have access to information from the outside world. 

Issues With Previous Foreign Policy Strategies 

2. While the United States did intend to improve and promote human rights in North Korea with the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004, not much have changed since then. The act aimed to provide humanitarian assistance to North Koreans both in North Korea and the ones that fled North Korea and tried to increasing the availability of information inside North Korea among other things. 

1. While the act itself had good intendants, it did not help as much as it could have and should have enforced more strongly to improve North Korea over a prolonged period of time. 

1. While initially provided $4 million to promote human rights, there was a decrease to $2 million in 2008 when the 2004 act was extended. There must not be a decrease in the amount of money we were giving since the citizens of North Korea themselves do need help and it is like quitting. 

A New Strategy 

3. The United States is one of the most powerful countries in the world, but should not take control of fixing North Korea. Rather, we should get the help of other groups like the United Nations and work on the solution together. With this we could get better results and come up with different ideas that may be better than anything the United States would come up with alone. 

4. While there is a lot of different parts about North Korea that we could try to fix, the most important issues are currently the concentration camps in which anyone can get sent to and killed without a good reason, and the lack of information about the outside world available to the North Korean public.  

1. While we could send in military to North Korea to take over and then get rid of all the concentration camps, this would not be a good idea since North Korea still have the possibility to use their nuclear bomb if we did this and it is not worth the risk. Instead of the military, the United States and other countries should first try to improve our relations with North Korea so they do not hate us and the rest of the world so much. 

1. o improve our relations instead of just sending in aid and food, we must use diplomatic means. For example, creating a friendlier relationship through social interaction, like when the U.S. sent in the basketball team to North Korea or ping pong diplomacy.  

1. After the U.S. improves its relationship with North Korea, the U.S. would engage in a diplomatic discussion to convince Kim Jong-un to give the North Koreans access to outside information without prosecution 

1. Since this is unlikely to happen, the United States can try to secretly give North Koreans access to outside information and try to make sure they are not prosecuted for this. This would be hard to do but can be done. 

1. It is unlikely Kim Jong-un would willingly get rid of the concentration camps but the United States can do try to secretly get of the concentration camps when we are have good relations and are close enough with North Korea. We may need to lose military as a last resort. 

2. If we improve our relationship, North Korea may be willing to sign a peace treaty or make an agreement with us for these two problems 

Challenges 

5. Other countries or the United Nations may not be willing to help us improve North Korea in which case we would be on our own again.  6. We could try our best but still unable to improve our relationship with North Korea 7. We may have to use military to get rid of the concentration camps and making it so the citizens living in North Korea have access to information from the outside world which could end badly for us and the rest of the world.  

1. North Korea could us their nuclear bombs if this happened.  

Why A New Foreign Policy Strategy is Needed 

8. Our current one does not work and the North Koreans need help  
9. if we do nothing then nothing in North Korea will ever change 
10.  Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.