Senator Barack Obama has criticized NAFTA - the North American Free Trade Agreement - throughout his campaign for president. It has hurt the American economy, he argues, and cost Americans their jobs. As such, he would get away with it once elected president (or change it dramatically). CTV now reports that, while Obama is criticizing NAFTA publicly, his staffers have told Canada not to worry, it’s mere rhetoric.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But, Tuesday night, Obama said that he would tell Mexico and Canada that “we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.”

When asked about it a spokesman for Obama’s campaign said that “the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded ‘implausible’,” but “did not deny that contact had been made.” Some sources say that Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign has also contacted Canada but when asked about it, the campaign - unlike Obama’s - flatly denied the allegation.

There are two issues here:

1. As Ed Morrissey explains, if the report is accurate, Obama is demagoguing. “It would mean he’s telling people what they want to hear while rejecting it himself, or alternately that he has begun his diplomatic relations with Canada by lying to them. Either way if true, it paints a disturbing picture of the kind of politician Obama really is,” Ed writes.

In this case Obama would be like most politicians: willing to use words to get people to vote for him, while knowing that he’s not telling them the truth / that he can’t act on those words.

2. Even if not true, Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric still stands on its own. For some reason, there’s quite a big anti-free trade or anti-globalization movement in the US right now, which - if politicians would act on it - would do great damage to both the US economy and to its image.

As Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said: “(They) should recognize that NAFTA benefits the U.S. tremendously. Those who speak of it as helpful to (just the) Canadian or Mexican economies are missing the point.”

Indeed. Free trade helps all the countries involved.

Anyway, can you imagine what would happen if the US would either withdraw from NAFTA or change its conditions? Liberal MP and finance critic John McCallum told Canada AM that the U.S. pulling out of NAFTA “would be a disaster for Canada.”

It would cause great damage, and it would make the US incredibly unpopular in its own region (aside from that it will lose money). Ed, again, quite rightfully remarks:

In case the Democrats don’t realize it, Canada is our most important trading partner — and they rely on NAFTA heavily. Canada is the number one importer for oil, followed by our other NAFTA partner Mexico. If we junk NAFTA, it will create a fairly large diplomatic rift and ripples throughout our economy. Instead of making us more popular in the world, the Democrats will start making us less popular on our own continent and alienate our closest friend, as well as damage all three economies.

A commenter at CQ links to this editorial at Investor’s Business Daily, which is well worth your time. The title: “NAFTA nonsense insults our allies.”

In Tuesday’s debate, Democrats blasted the North American Free Trade Agreement. Sure, they’re pandering for Rust Belt votes. But do they ever consider the impact of their statements on our allies?That’s who is being hurt by the slew of anti-NAFTA statements that seem to be particularly aimed at Mexico, even if the problem actually comes from somewhere else…

This not only insults our allies and trading partners, it signals to everyone else that America’s capricious, chest-thumping protectionist ally, Mexico, a third-world nation that is trying hard to transform itself into a first, bears the brunt of this coded jingoism.

That’s because trade pacts these days are about more than just trade — they represent long-term strategic partnerships. But after this talk, who’ll want to sign a permanent trade deal knowing they’ll be threatened by ambitious politicians every election season?

(My emphasis obviously)

The editorial also cites some interesting information about NAFTA:

Far from being an enemy, Mexico is a partner with whom we did $350 billion in two-way trade last year. In the process, we’ve gained millions of high-paid jobs in the U.S. The relationship has boosted U.S. incomes an average $2,000 per family since 1994. Besides buying 35% of our global exports, Mexico and Canada are also two of our biggest oil suppliers, selling us energy we’d be in huge trouble without.

Perhaps it’s time to do something about the anti-NAFTA (and globalization) rhetoric?

Bias warning: the author of this article considers NAFTA to be one of Bill Clinton’s major achievements.