I find it interesting that Chinese TV is more interested in NAFTA renegotiation than most U.S., Canada or Mexico media. Against the backdrop of China exploiting NAFTA as a backdoor into the U.S. market we accept this disparate level of interest is not accidental. China is specifically the “third party dumper” mentioned by Robert Lighthizer.

The negotiations can have as many as six rounds; each round lasting 5 days; two rounds in each nation, over the course of three months, with each round tackling a different economic sector.

It is also entirely possible they could also end sooner, much sooner.

The introductory remarks by Trade representatives from Canada, Mexico and the U.S. can be considerably enlightening for those who review the transparent political agendas behind the trade discussions. I have a spidey sense these first round negotiations might not even make it to Sunday.

In the video below it is interesting to watch Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, outline her priorities (also here in more detail). Ms. Freeland gives her remarks in English, Spanish and French. If you can watch Freeland without A.) Laughing hysterically, or B.) punching your TV/Computer screen, well, you’re Job.

Through Ms. Freedlan’s leadership – Canada is focused on ensuring a “progressive trade agenda”. She is demanding a focus on LGBTQ, and specifically transgender rights in the trade deal, in addition to cultural sensitivity aspects, and climate change. Go figure.

Remarks begin at 04:50 of video with a quick housekeeping set up by Robert Lighthizer.

♦Ms. Freeland remarks begin at 06:00.

♦Mr. Guajardo remarks at 12:45 and

♦Ambassador Lighthizer at 17:50.

.

The Mexicans are already offended, and it’s only the opening remarks:

Tough, rude opening statement on #NAFTA today by Lighthizer, a breach of traditional protocol for host country, some on the Mexican side say https://t.co/6CNhfLY3OL — José Díaz-Briseño (@diazbriseno) August 16, 2017

And now you know why Canada desperately wants to keep the Chapter 19 dispute settlement clause. – EXPLAINED HERE –